to my wants sometimes both are joyned 2 Cor. 9.25 the administration of this service or the ministration of this Ministry and the higher powers are termed Rom. 13.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. that is the Minister or Officer of God In ecclesiastical matters both words are used and are applied to Christ who is termed the Minister of the Circumcision Rom. 15.8 a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb 8.2 and to Ministers of Christ Acts. 13.2 2 Cor. 11.23 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oft restrained to the office of a Deacon Phil. 1.1 1 Tim. 3.8 But the Ministry we are enquiring of is neither that of a Servant that waits on his Master nor of a contributor that supplieth anothers wants of outward necessaries nor the performing of the function of a Magistrate by doing acts of publique justice nor the ministry of Christ which was and is peculiar to him nor the Ministry of Angels who are also termed Gods Ministers and Ministring Spirits Heb. 1.7 14. Nor the office of Deacons as their office is termed serving tables distinct from the Ministry of the word Acts. 6.1 2 4. But that Ministry to which Matthias was elected Acts 1.25 and of which it is said 1 Cor. 3.5 who then is Paul and who is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every one and is meant Ephes. 4.11 12. where it is said that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the work of the Ministry This Ministry was performed by the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists somewhat extraordinarily either in respect of their gifts or their commission which are now ceased That Ministry we now enquire of is that of ordinary Pastors and Teachers as now sent To these sundry Ministries are usually assigned to 〈◊〉 Ministry of the word of Baptism of the Lords supper of confirmation ordination government by admonitions censures and if there be any other work allotted to those whom the Scripture terms Bishops or Elders But our quaerist in this his writing medling only with that part of Ministry in this main question disputed by him which is by Preaching I understand his quaerie to be meant of that part of the Ministry Now this Ministry is usually expressed by the Ministry of the word Acts 6.4 the Ministry of the Gospel of God Rom. 15.16 the Ministry of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. the Ministry of reconciliation 2 Cor. 5.18 Stewards of the Misteris of God 1 Cor. 4.1 and sometimes our Ministery without any other adjunct 2 Cor. 6.3 and an Oeconomy or dispensation 1 Cor. 9.17 more fully Acts 20.24 the Ministery which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God Which shewes the Author of this Ministry whereupon he requires 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a man so account of us as of the Mynisters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Minister Acts 13.5 of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God The finis cui or those for whom this Ministry is appointed are the Saints and therefore it is said to be for the perfecting of the Saints or joynting together of them and the edifying of the body of Christ Ephes. 4 12. wherefore St. Paul saith of himself that he was made a Minister of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given to mee for you to fulfill the word of God Col. 1.24 25. which shewes that he was not a Minister for one particular Church but for any part of it where his lot was to Preach and that he was not Minister of the Church by their election or mission or direction for these were of God and Christ Jesus but for the Church or Saints as the subjects to and for whom he was appointed to fulfill the word of God even the mystery which had been hid from ages and from generations but then was made manifest to his Saints to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory v. 26 27. to which purpose he speaks also of himself Ephes. 3.6 7 8 9. which yet is not to be restrained so to the Saints but that the Ministry of the Gospel was to be to them that were not Saints I am a debtor saith he Rom. 1.14 both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians both to the wise and to the unwise and 1 Cor. 1.23 We preach Christ unto the Jewes a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness and 2 Cor. 2.14 15. Thanks be to God which alwayes causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish So that the Ministry of the word though it be primarily for the Church and the Saints yet is the preaching of the Gospel the Ministry of Christ even to unbelievers as Ezekiel was a Prophet to the rebellious Nation of Israel when he spake Gods word whether they did hear or forbear Ezek 2.5 And hence I inferre that there may be a true Ministry not only in but also out of a Church of believers Sect. 19. A true Gospel Ministry may be in a false Church so deemed Secondly A Church may be said to be false many wayes 1. Because it was irregularly constituted that is not gathered by consent or Church-covenant or baptism but by humane Laws in forcing men to meet together in one Congregation or more because dwellers in such a Precinct or born or living in such a Countrey In this respect I conceive the Quaerist makes a national Church a false Church 2. Because it is an hypocritical company which doth indeed make them a false Church before God yet quoad nos they are a true visible Church if there be no falsehood in that which is descernible by men 3. Because it is Schismatical so as to break off from other parts of the Catholique Church without a justifiable cause whether out of ambition passion misapprehension or any other such like undue motive 4. Because it is heretical or Heresy is broached and upheld by a party in it Now I confess that it can hardly be that there should be a true Ministry in a Church tainted with Heresy Yet sith our Lord Christ writes to the Church of Pergamos as one of his seven Golden Candlesticks though there were that held the Doctrin of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Revel 2.14 15. and in like manner the Church of Thyatira or the Angel of it suffered the Woman which called her self a Prophetess to teach and seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols I inferre those Angels were true Ministers though in a Church in some sort false that is tainted with
not acknowledged Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province nor are they termed Arch-Bishops as if other Bishops had their authority from them as the Pope claims but they only have a Primacy or Precedency with some other Prerogatives by that title Nor are they or other Bishops made Lords as Christ over the whole Church or have such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5.3 Luke 22.25 26. and is usurped by Popish Bishops but are Lords only by the Kings Grant as is said before in Answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 5 6. not in the Church of Christ but in the Kingdom and Parliament and therefore this acknowledgement is not contrary to the revelation of Christ there being no contrariety or contradiction unless there were an opposition in the same respect as Logicians determine Christ is said 1 Tim. 6.15 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the only Dynasta or Potentate and yet without contrariety or contradiction the Eunuch Acts 8.27 is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dynasta or Potentate as in the reading in the margin of our translation But were there contrariety yet it is not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance which do usually determine not what may be but what shall and must be nor that Ministers own it by subscription 2. That men may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops which is contrary to Heb. 5.4 John 10.1 7. and 13.20 and 14.6 Act. 14.23 with 6.3 5. Answ. It is true it is acknowledged by the present Ministers of England that men may be made Ministers by these Lord-Bishops but not that they may and ought to be made Ministers only by these Lord-Bishops sith Ministers are allowed who are made by Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords and for the Churches Reformed of Foreigners dwelling in England Ministers made by Presbyters only But this is not a Law Constitution or Ordinance to which Ministers subscribe nor if they did is there any contrariety therein to the revelation of Christ. Heb. 5.4 it is said And no man taketh this honour that is of being High-Priest unto himself but he that is called of God as Aaron But this is impertinently alledged being not spoken of the Gospel Ministery but of the Priesthood of the Law and the High-Priest and of his Calling by God immediately and therefore if that which the Ministers acknowledge be proved contrary to the revelation of Christ by this text the making of Mâ—nisters in Congregational Churches by their Eldership is alike contrary sith they are not called of God as Aaron Of the impertinency of John 10.1 7. enough is said before in the Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Joh. 13.20 He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me is no more contrary to Bishops Ordination than to Presbyters John 14.6 speaks not at all of making Ministers but of the way whereby Christians have access to God Of Acts 14.23 and 6.3 5. enough hath been said in Answer to Chap. 2. Sect. 3. 3. That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God contrary to Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 Answ. That there is a Law Ordinance or Constitution of this to which Ministers subscribe I finde noâ— Of the texts Mat. 18.16 17. 1 Cor. 5.4 enough hath been said in Answer to the Preface Sect. 15. to Chap. 4. Sect. 5. whence the impertinency of the alledging these texts may appear 4. That the Office of Suffragans Deans Canons Petty-Canons Prebendaries Coiristers Organists Archdeacons Commissaries Officials Parsons Vicars and Curates are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church evidently contrary to 1 Cor. 12 18 28. Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ ver 12 13. in what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the institution of Christ may be owned as lawful or necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Soveraignty of Christ cannot by such dull persons as my self he conjectured That any others see them any way useful to the Church of Christ may be imputed to such a sharp-sightedness as was that of Caius Caligula to whom when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not imbracing the Moon 't was answered Solis Domine vobis-diis licet se invicem videre Answ. Where this imagined Law Ordinance or Constitution is or when and how the present Ministers do own acknowledge submit and subscribe to it as this Author suggests is not here shewed by him nor do I know where to finde it Oâ— the Office of so many of these as are ordained Presbyters or Priests as the term is in the English Liturgy enough hath been said in answering the 3 Chapter Sect. 3 5. c. that though their names are various yet their Office is the same with some of those who are of Christ 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 and consequently lawful and necessary the rest are not reckoned among the Orders of Ministry in the Church but counted Services which are acknowledged not necessary and whether they be useful or not it matters not in respect of the present enquiry if there be no Law Constitution or Ordinance to make them lawful and necessary to be had in the Church which the Ministers subscribe to as I think there is not 5. That the Office â—f Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick praying administration of Baptism and preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6.2 Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That at first the institution of Deacons was to serve tables Acts 6.2 not to preach the word of God yet Steven and Philip being imployed in Preaching and Philip in Baptizing it is not contrary to Christs revelation in those texts or any other that they should be imployed in those works 6. That the Ordinance of breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die which is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.33 Mat. 26.26 Act. 2.42 and 20.7 Answ. The Communion is in time of infectious diseases allowed to be administred to one only besides the Minister which whether it be fit to be done is left to the Minister That it is diametrically opposite to the nature and institution of that Ordinance is not easily proved 1 Cor. 10.16 A Communion is proved in that Sacrament but ver 17. and 1 Cor. 12.13 rather proves the Communion to be therein with all believers throughout the world though absent than only with the present partakers and if so though but two joyn the Minister and the sick man the Communion there meant is held with all Christians the meaning and
communion with a Minister that preacheth the truth prayes to God in the name of Christ for things agreeable to Gods will administers the Lords Supper in remembrance of Christs death because of his personal sins Partaking with a Minister in these things in this case is not having fellowshâ—p with the unfruitful works of darkness or being partakers 〈◊〉 whoâ—â—mongers or unclean persons or covetous Idolaters forbidden Ephâ—s 5 7.17 It is nothing for but against this Authors puâ—pose which the Apostle chargeth Timothy 1 Tâ—m 6.3 4 5. That he should withdraw himself that is not 〈…〉 to himself in the work of the ministry such as 〈◊〉 otherwise than St. Paul had instructed Timothy that consenâ— not to whâ—lesome words the words of our Lord Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 the Doctrine which is according to godliness As for the last Text though it be still in the mouths of the Separatists and is ridiculously applyed to every thing that they call Babylon as Bishops Common Prayer Ministers of any party besides their own Tythes at the last by the Quintomonarchians to all the pâ—esent Rulers so it is by this Author often uâ—ged still besides the purpose of the holy Ghost it being only a warning for the people of God to come out of Rome whether by local departure from the City or by leaving the communion of the Papacy in Doctrine and worship which is nothing to a separation from hearing or joyning with the Ministers in holy things because of their personal sins Nevertheless this Author cracks of abundant demonstration and as if nothing in the world carried a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sins just as if one should say He that heard Judas preach the Gospel was partaker with him in his theft which is more like the inference of a man crazed in his intellectuals than a sober minded man But because some mens confident words prevail with some persons addiâ—ted to them more than sound reason let 's consider what brightness is in his application Is not our so doing saith he a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in 〈◊〉 evil deeds Marvellous brightness clear evidence No wonder he applauds himself like an Archimedes and cryes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found I have found the Demonstraâ—â—on and that his followers add their plaudite thereto 〈◊〉 we moâ—â—s do not see the brightness of this consequence A Christian Professor goes to hear a Minister that preacheth the Word of God truly therefore he consents to his intrusion into his place he doth openly hear therefore he doth secretly consent he applyes himself to learn the word of God from him therefore he encourageth him in his evil deeds It is too favourable a censure to say his Argument is a baculo ad angulum as if a man argued the staff stands in the corner therefore it will rain to morrow he seems to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to speak contradictions He that goes to hear him preach Gods Word doth consent with him that teacheth in doing well and encourage him to preach the truth not as this Author saith in evil deeds it may more truly be said that this Author and other Separatists are guilty of sin in not consenting with the Preacher but discouraging him in well doing Did not Ministers heretofore and perhaps this Author complain that their auditories were thin that good people withdrew from publique exercises to pâ—ivate meetings that this was a discouragement to them in their work and is it now to go hear them an encouragement in their evil deeds Is not this to blow hot and cold with the same breath We silly Ignaro's think we ought not to discourage any who preach the truth of the Gospel be they Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Antipaedobaptist by our absence or exceptions against him for his personal failings but to countenance and encourage him by our presence and otherwise and think we have the example of St Paul Philip 1.18 to warrant us therein and marvel that such should argue thus who blame them that silence good Preachers for not assenting to the Liturgy not considering that they may thus argue If we should permit the Separatists to preach we should consent secretly with them and encourage them in their evil deeds such as they conceive their gathering a separate Congregation and taking their mission from it to be Yet we have more of this doughty Demonstration in a Socratical way of disputing by questioning Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming It seems it can hardly go down with this Author to call them Brethren their conformity hath unchristened them But I answer If it be not the discharging their duty for the reclaiming them which as it is stated would perhaps be rather their sin than their duty yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing Gods Word which is so farr from hindring them in the discharge of any duty incumbent on them for the reclaiming of Ministers from any sin they are to reprove in them that it rather fits them for it For the hearing them shews they do not as this Author count them their or the Lords enemies which makes a reproof to be better taken and is agreeable to the Apostles rule even when we shun the company of any that is unruly to count him not as an enemy but to admonish him as a brother 2 Thes. 3.15 But doth indeed this Author think it the duty of every hearer to reclaim or else separate from every Minister that either enters into his ministry unduly or doth not discharge his function as he should Suppose a John de Cluse is unduly made an Elder or a Johnson excommanicate his Brother and Father rashly an Ainsworth disagree with Johnson or Robinson about private communion with the members of the Church of England a Wheel-wright vent Antinomian errours must every hearer reclaim them or separate from them or be guilty of their sin They that leave the Church of England to be in Congregations of such principles would find it to be matter of repentance to avoid Episcopal government to be under popular would be like Tinkers work to stop one hole and to make two under shew of better Discipline to introduce Anarchy and confusion But enough of answer to this wild Argument in which the Author accuseth deeply but brings no proof only puts questions for proofs and would have the Defendant prove himself Not guilty when it concerned the Accuser to prove his Indictment I hasten to the remainder CHAP. 9. ARG. 9. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. THat the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the wayes and institutions some or more of them of our Lord Jesus and hardens persons in a false way of worship rebellion against him is utterly unlawful for the
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
they that persecuted them for so doing may expect the like judgments of God to fall on them as fell on the Jewes But if it be otherwise and the things inveighed against be not such as they make them and their bearing testimony be such as tends to infringe the publique peace but not to rectify any thing they are guilty of calumny and their practice not to be judged to proceed from holy zeale but evil passion Sect. 11. The conformist not chargeable as the false Prophets of the Jewes Sixthly saith he that they had all along their corruption in worship and degeneracy from the worship of God false Prophets who ran before they were sent prophesying smooth things to them in the name of the Lord seeing Lying vanities for them according to the desires of the hearts of them and their Rulers who were therefore in great esteem amongst them Isa. 9.15 and 28.7 Jer. 6.13 and 23.11 28. and 28.10 Hos. 9 8 Jer. 2.8 26. and 5.31 and 14.14 and 23.13 21. Ezek. 13.2 and 22.25 28. Mic. 3.5 6 7. Zeph. 3.4 2 Pet. 2.1 Answer All this is granted and if any of the Preachers in England prophesie lies in Gods name or bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them or are such as those whom the Texts alledged describe let them be branded as false Prophets But if they teach the fundamentals of Christian Religion truly and in respect of the substance of worship use no other than God hath appointed though they may in some points remote from the foundation erre and use some things in and about the worship of God which should not be yet do not overthrow the worship of God in substantials then are they false accusers who accuse them as if they were such as those Texts of Scripture alledged do describe Sâ—ct 12. Invectives against teachers and worship now may be from another spirit than that of the Prophets Seventhly saith he that in the height of their Apostacy God left not himself without a witness having one or other extraordinarily raised up and spirited by him to testify for his name and glory against all their abominations and self-invented worship reserving also a remnant unto himself that were not carried away with the Spirit of whoredoms and delusions 1 Kings 19.14 18. 2 Kings 17.13 Romans 11.3 4. Jer. 18.11 and 25.5 and 35.15 Answer That self invented worship was bowing the Knee to Baal 1 Kings 19.18 Rom. 11.3 4. serving Idols 2 Kings 17.12 burning Incense to vanity Jer. 18.15 going after other Gods to serve them and worship them Jer. 25.6 and 35.15 If there be found any such self-invented worship in the Church of England it will do well to testifie against it But if there be not such abominations and self-invented worship these texts will not justify Persons who have no other than ordinary calling to testify against them much less to censure them as whoredoms and delusions and they that practice them as carried away with the spirit of whoredoms and delusions And though persons may imagine they imitate Elijah are extraordinarily raised up and spirited by God and that they testify for Gods name and Glory when they call the Common-prayer Book an Idol the Ministers that conform Baals Priests the Communion the Mass with such like Billingsgate Rhetorick yet it is not unlikely but that it may be truly verified of such which our Lord Christ said to James and John when they would have fire commanded to come down from Heaven and consume the Samaritans even as Elias did ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of and that it may be bitter and not holy zeal which moves them and their language judged by God not just reproof but unjust reviling Sect. 13. The forsaking of false Prophets and worship among the Jewes is no justification of separation from the present teachers and worship Eighthly saith he that it was the sin of that People to hearken unto the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord though they pretended never so much to be sent by him and the unquestionable duty of the Lords preserving Remnant to separate from them as also from all the false devised worship of that day though commended by their Kings and Rulers 2 Kings 17.21 22. Hos. 5.11 The former is evident such Prophets were to be cut off from the middest of them Deut. 18.20 and they are expressely forbidden to hear them Deut. 13.3 Jer. 27.6 16. so is the latter their devised worship being a breach upon the soveraign Authority of God must needs be a grievous sin as the names of Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication by which the Spirit of the Lord doth frequently set it forth abundantly demonstrates Psal. 73.27 Isai. 57.3.8 Jer. 9.2 EZek. 23.45 Hos. 3.7 and 7.3 Lev. 20.5 Jer. 13.27 Ezek. 16 17.20.30 Hos. 1.2 Rev. 14.8 and 18.9.19 20. which without controversie the people of God were to separate from and have no communion with any in upon what pretence soever which is solemnly charged upon them as their duty in the Scripture Hos. 4.15 Amos 5.5 Prov. 4.14 and 5.8 Cant. 4.8 Answer None are said in those Texts or any other I meet with not to be sent by the Lord who delivered the truth of God but they only in those places are denied to be sent by God who delivered falsehoods and such falsehoods as were inciting to Idolatry or contradictions to the messages of the true Prophets and such were not to be heard though they should be commâ—nded by Kings and Rulers who ought to cut them off when they spake in Gods name a word which he had not commanded them to speak or did speak in the name of other Gods Deut. 18.20 And if they sought to turn them from the Lord to serve other Gods they were not only not to hearken to them but also if they were never so near to them they should not spare them but kill them Deut. 13.9 which I presume he will not say of the present ministers of England and therefore me thinks he should have left out these allegations if he had well bethought himself how unfit they were to his present designe That devised worship which is termed Adultery Whoredom Idolatry Fornication is Levit. 20.5 Committing whoredom with Molech Psal. 73.27 being farre from God going a whoring from him Isaia 57.5 inflaming themselves with Idols under every green Tree slaying the Children in the Valleys under the Clefts of the Rocks Jerem. 9.2 treachery Jer. 13.27 abominations on the hill in the fields Ezek. 16.17 making to her self images of men to commit Whoredom with them v. 20. Sacrificing their Sons and Daughters to them to be devoured Ezek. 23.37 Committing Adultery with Idols Hos. 1.2 departing from the Lord Revel 14.8 and 18.9 such fornication as Babylon made all Nations even Kings of the earth to commit and from such it is without controversie the people of God were to separate and have no communion with any in upon any
designed by his Son and his Apostles the several Officers and Offices his Wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House that is his Church as they are such First Christ Jesus called his twelve Disciples together and gave them power and authority over all Devils and to cure Diseases and he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick Luke 9.1 2. After he appointed other seventy also and sent them two and two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come and these were confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Mat. 10.6 To whom he saith only he was sent Mat. 15.24 St. Peter having confessed him Christ tells him Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church which by reason of the repeating of his Name and alluding to it and thereby minding him of it is justly to be thought to imply a promise of a special use of him in the building of his Church not barely as that particular man but as a foundation of it by his Preaching as other Apostles are called Foundations Eph. 2.20 in respect of their Doctrine wherein St. Peter had some work before the other in his Preaching Acts 2. and 3. and 10. And therefore Christ promiseth to give him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16.19 So as by his preaching to open the Kingdom of Heaven first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles when Cornelius was admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore Act. 15.7 he speaks of it as his preheminence that God made choice among the Disciples that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe he imploying that key of knowledge which the Lawyers had taken away who entered not themselves into the Kingdom of God and them that were entering in they hindered Luke 11.52 To him our Lord Christ assures Mat. 16.19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which Phrase seems by the expressions Mat. 23.4 Rev 2.24 to import that what he should command to be done should be in Heaven ratified as commanded by God as it was Acts 2.38 Acts 3.19 20. Acts 10.48 and what he should untie that is free men from the obligation of that should be untied in Heaven that is God would not require the observation of it which was performed Acts 11.3 14 17 18. Acts 15.10 Which promises though personal to St. Peter and in respect of the first work peculiar to him neither imparted to any other Apostle nor derived from him to any successour yet this last promise was after made to the rest of the Apostles Mat. 18.18 and performed when St. Peter with them decreed about Circumcision Acts 15.24 and the Holy Ghost established it v. 28. Afterwards our Lord Christ being risen from the dead finds his Disciples assembled for fear of the Jews Thomas being absent and saith Peace be unto you as the Father hath sent me even so send I you And when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20.19 21 22 23. The words of salutation of mission the breathing on them and imparting the Holy Ghost to them do import that the remission and retaining of sins there promised was a peculiar power given to them on whom he thus breathed though also communicated after to other Apostles who were in like manner sent and received the Holy Ghost as they did Which remission of sins was accomplished when by their preaching persons repented and were Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins Acts 2.39 41. When Aeneas was cured by St Peter Acts 9.33 For healing is by remission of sins Mat. 9.6 James 5.15 John 5.14 Or by taking off the sentence of delivering to Satan by which the Apostles had power to retain sins as appears by that speech of St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.20 That he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they might be instructed or corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as either to be afraid or disabled from blaspheming any more as they had done when Satan should chastise them with bodily punishment St. Paul also had determined by his Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christians were gathered together that they might be witnesses to deliver him that had his Fathers Wife unto Satan for the destruction of the Flesh that is the wasting of his body that the Spirit or Soul being sensible of his sin and humbled for it might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. Which had been his comming to them with a Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 and the retaining his sin had not his after-sorrow caused S. Paul to forgive him in the person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 which was the remitting of sin confirmed in Heaven Other instances there are of the retaining of sins by Apostolical power when St. Paul smote Elymas the sorcerer with blindness Acts 13.11 and St. Peter inflicted death upon Ananias and his wife Sapphira for lying to the Holy Ghost and keeping back part of the price of the Land which they had sold Acts 5.3 5 10. After this mission commission and breathing of Christ on the disciples to reestablish St. Peter after his fall Christ injoynes him to feed his Lambs and his Sheep thrice charging him that he might shew his love to him whom he had thrice denied whereby he doth not make him universal Bishop or Monarch of the whole visible Church as Romanists impiously pervert the Text but requires of him diligence in testimony of his love to him by doing that work which is expressed in words which signifie teaching one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not ruling and that Ministry which is common to other Bishops Acts 20.28 and Elders among whom St. Peter termes himself a fellow Elder and Christ the chief Shepherd 1 Peter 5.1 2 4. But then Christ did most design the Officers and Offices he thought requisite for the management of the affairs of his house when being to ascend into Heaven not long after in a mountain of Galilee Jesus spake to them saying all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations or rather Disciple or make Disciples all Nations or of or in all Nations not the Jewes only as formerly Mark 16.15 Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature or to all the creation Baptizing them thus discipled Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved into the name of the the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
men or rudiments of the world by which the Jewish Rites to be meant is apparent from Col. 2.16 17 20. Gal 4 3 9. 6. Saith he It carries with it a sad reflection upon the authority of the Scripture as not thorowly furnished to make the man of God perfect Answ. The authority and use of the holy Scripture is delivered by St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. that they were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus that they were profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Whence is rightly deduced against the Romanists the perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture without unwritten Traditions for all Doctrinals of Faith and Manners and Worship in respect of Essentials But it is no ill reflection upon its authority to say that some accidentals of instituted Worship undetermined in Scripture ordered by men according to general Rules in Scripture are warranted by permission without command of those particularities in holy Scripture 7. The Lord condemns not onely that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done beside it Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 Mat. 15.9 Lev. 10.1 their sin lay not in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden but which God commanded them not Prov. 30.6 Jer. 7.31 Answ. I suppose that this Author when he saith the Lord condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word but also that which is done besides it means it of warrant and direction by command and in instituted Worship otherwise he should hold that nothing is indifferent which is too absurd and therefore I shall not charge him with it till he do expresly assert it But if his meaning be as I conceive that God condemns all that which is done besides the Warrant and Direction of the Word by a command in the New Testament even in accidentals of instituted Worship which must be his proposition if he argue to the purpose his assertion is false and not proved by any of the Texts alledged Not Deut. 4 2. which is to be understood of Doctrines Commands or Institutions as from God Thus Ainsworth in his Annot. on Deut. 4.2 not add Hereby all Doctrines of men are condemned Mat. 15.9 and the all-sufficiency and authority of Gods Word stablished for ever Gal. 3.15 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be sound a Liar Prov. 30 6. Which place is to be understood not of particularities of Instituted Worship undetermined for then the reason should have been thus Lest he reprove thee and thou be found superstitious but of Gods Commands Promises or Predictions of which he had said v. 5. Every Word of God is pure he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him and is opposed to the practice of false Prophets who pretended revelations as from God which they had not from him and therefore were reproved by him and found Liars Which is also confirmed by that parallel place Rev. 22.18 19. Mat. 15.9 is the same with Mark 7.7 before alledged and is taken from Isa. 29.13 and both by the Prophet against the Seers of his time the Rulers and Prophets to whom the vision of God was as a sealed Book and they understood not or taught not according to his Law but made shew of drawing nigh to God whilest their fear towards him that is their Worship of him or obedience to him was taught by the precepts of men and by our Lord Christ urged against the Pharisees who were guilty of the same hypocrisie and indeed proves that all Doctrines are condemned wherein that is taught or commanded or urged as Gods Worship which is onely by the Command of men but condemns not every particularity of accidentals in instituted Worship undetermined by God because from men who reach it not nor observe it as Gods Worship by his Command Which Exposition is agreeable with that which this Author puts after in the Margin In a Translation of the New Testament in Edward the sixths time the Author of the Notes on Mat. 15. saith God will not be woâ—shipped after the Doctrine and Precepts of men but as he himself hath prescribed and taught us in his Word The same is to be said of Deut. 12.32 where God having warned the Israelites that they should not do so unto the Lord their God as the Nations destroyed by them served their Gods adds whatsoever thing I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Which hath the same sense as the Words Deut. 4.2 well expounded in the English large Annotations Deut. 4.2 shall not add not as a Comment or Exposition to a Text but man must not add any thing to Gods Word either for words or meaning contrary to it nor as Gods Word with an intent to make that of Divine Authority which is but humane as the Papists do by Apocryphal Writings and unwritten Traditions See Chap. 12.32 and 18.20 Diminish by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority or concealing any part of it either for words or meaning or by partial Belief of it or obedience to it God is not to be believed obeyed or served in part and by halfs but as he is to be loved wholly Chap. 6.5 Which Precept is not to be restrained to immediate Worship but to be extended to all other duties enjoyned not only to the Priests by whom the solemn Worship of God was to be administred but also the King who was to have a Copy of the Law and not to turn aside from the Commandment to the right hand or to the left Deut. 17.20 and yet might make Orders about Civil Government not expressed in the Law Yea were the prohibition Deut. 4.2 and 12.32 restrained as it is not to worship it cannot be taken for a prohibition of all Orders made by men concerning Gods Worship as might be proved from Josh. 22.34 2 Chron. 20.3 and 30.23 Esther 9.27 31. and other places if there were need but such as were different from Gods commands in things determined by him or in things indeterminate when urged as Gods command and made his Worship wherein it is to be considered that God was more strict to the Israelites being more full in Ordinances concerning Ceremonies Typical and peculiar to them than he is to Christians whom he hath released of their burden of rites Lev. 10 1. The sin lay in this that they offered strange fire which was forbidden as even Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth Annot. on Lev. 10.1 Strange fire that is other fire than God had sanctified on his Altar As strange incense was expresly forbidden Exod. 30.9 So strange fire was not commanded but implicitely forbidden by Lev. 1.7 6.12 as afterward God plainly sheweth in Levit. 16.12 So that both the
expression there and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed which must be understood of that place Jer. 7.31 where the thing God is said not to have commanded is that which he had most strictly forbidden and severely punished to wit the building the high places of Tophet which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31 Which I commanded them not or which I never commanded but exprâ—sly forbad and professed to abhor Levit. 18.21 and 20.3 Deut. 12.31 and 18.10 And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onely beside the warrant and direction of the Word and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part adjunct or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages generally all that write upon the second Commandment speak fully hereunto Answ. This assertion cannot be proved nor is it likely to be true such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian Beza Luther and Whitaker are impertinent That of Cyprian Epist. 63. to Caecilius is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ and not of adjuncts undetermined the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii who would have water only in the Lords Supper whom Cyprian refutes asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water erring therein Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1 that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth are to be understood of things determined therein Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11 as they are cited which I have not the Book to examine are meant of Doctrines or Decrees which he would not have subscribed to or taught unless in the Word of God The place where Dr. Whitakers words are is not quoted they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments which they conceive to confer grace and add it to Baptism in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined is unlawful without a Command in Scripture That many others may be added to these I doubt not but that they speak home to his Proposition I believe not Voet. Polit. Eccles. part 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium cum ea potestatem regiminis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders Ch. 1. saith there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God and Government of the Church common to humane actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument nor personal motives good proof He adds The Minor or second Proposition consists of two parts 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship one would wonder should it be denied however 't is evident it is so from the light of this single demonstration That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us is part of the instituted Worship of God for what I wait for not being in the thing it self in which I am waiting no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it but Divine Institution but in the Hearing of the Word we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us Therefore Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface in the three first Sections because it is required by God and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility and is for these ends an address immediately to God on whom only we wait to know his Will though brought us by his created Messenger whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word but as the Word of the living God nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his But I do not take the argument here produced to be demonstrative sith there be many things as Marriage Eating Drinking Ploughing Sowing c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God 2. Saith he That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter in the mean while we crave liberty to profess that it is not opinionativeness singularity vain-glory uncharitableness or any thing of that nature as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure but the dread and awe of God who is a jealous God and especially in point of worship and an holy fear of offending him that hinders us from complying in these matters could but one word tittle or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto but this we are fully assured those that dissent from us are not able to do what they say therein shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sifted to the uttermost Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word is warranted in Scripture which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets Mat. 7.15 Antichrists that seduce that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles 1 Joh 2.18 26. and 4.1 5 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be his Minor is proved but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry or their sinful practices nor by ventilating or scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter For though Ministers be as bad as Judas yet they may be heard preach the Gospel as he was and though the places alledged should prove
583. yields that our English word Priest and the Dutch Priester and the French Prebstre and Prestre and the Italian Prete to be formed from Presbyter Selden de Syn Ebrae l. 1. c. 14 p. 586 Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata And besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles and letters of Orders it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard cited by this Author in this Chapter pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences distinct 24. divis 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests they call Presbyters and say that they have the precept of the Apostle for them and that the Order of Priesthood or Presbytery the primitive Church had and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English but as the same with Presbyter or Elder from the Scripture or primitive Church not from either Jews or Heathens and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists if men had not mistaken it and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it had given no cause of suspition of compliance or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass as it is used in the Church of England who have declared against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Articles 28.31 in the Liturgy as it hath been lately revised and to which assent is required by all Ministers besides other wayes as amply as any other Protestant Church and therefore it is very evil that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery because of retaining the name Priest which neither came from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zech. 13.2 This of Zech. 13.2 is not a command but a promise that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land and that they shall be no more remembred which if it imply a command yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols not of the name of Priests whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol The other text Hos. 2.16 17. is thus And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ashi and shall call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name which is a Prediction of what should be rather than a Prohibition and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this God would not be called Baali that is my Lord because that word noted a Husband as commanding or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife but Ishi according to the first notation of Ishah Gen. 2.23 one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband which the words v. 14 19 20. lead to But if the reason of the not calling God Baali be as Grotius in his Annot Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband she shall not dare to use that name out of horrour of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol it may seem that the reason of not using should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name according to the proper and original meaning but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name For the words are not thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men but thou shalt not call me Baali that is in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God But if it be understood as a Prohibition according to the Law Exod 23.13 which I will not deny the 17. v. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name to import it cannot be conceived that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour or so as to trust in them as their worshipers did when they applyed them to their Idols as Psal. 16.4 is meant when the Psalmist saith He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips that is as Hos. 14.3 Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands ye are our gods Which sense the words before lead to that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal as v. 8. and as in the dayes of Baalim wherein she burnt Incense to them and she decked her self with her ear-rings and her jewels and she went after her lovers and forgot me saith the Lord v. 13. By which name of Baalim was meant the Sun and other Planets as may be proved out of holy Scripture and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris So that the forbidding the name of Baal or Baalim doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names as applyed to Idols with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them or giving occasion in applying the name to God to conceive as if he were like the Idols or allowed their Worship even as the Apostle Eph. 5.3 forbids any naming of fornication uncleanness or covetousness with any shew of liking For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God much less by a Woman to her Husband or Lord as the word did originally signifie may be gathered from that Isa. 54.5 who prophesied about the same time with Hosea where what we render thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name is in the Hebrew thy Baal or Baalim in the plural number and Nahum after him Nahum 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Baal of wrath that is who is a Lord of wrath by our Translatours rendred furious and by God himself after him as we now read Jer. 31.32 I was a Husband unto them is in Hebrew I was a Baal to them saith the Lord. Yea were the prohibition such as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God we might not give God the title of Melec or King because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech Milchom or Malcham that is their King Zeph. 1.5 nor call God Jehovah because the Gentiles termed their God Jove or Jah because they termed their God Jacchus or Helion the High one because they termed the Sun Helios or Adonai because of Adonis all which to have been used in imitation of and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker De descensu ad inferos in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4 in
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
1.24 and the Popes usurp whose decrees in points of Faith and determinations of doubts of Conscience and impositions of Laws binding the conscience are made unerring such Rule over Princes in secular Affairs with pomp outward grandure like Gentile Princes as the same Popes usurp rule for themselves not for Christ rule by force not by authority of Gods Word If any Lord-Bishop affect seek take upon him or exercise such Lordship or Dominion it may be censured for Antichristian yet not his Office but his practice is to be thus censured and this not to be imputed to his Order but his Person But to judge so of a person barely because of the Title of Lord which was given by Sarah to her Husband and propounded as meet 1 Pet. 3.6 or to deny any liberty to manage any civil business to an Ecclesiastical person because of those words of Christ is more than I conceive they have sufficient ground to do Sure such Congregational men as have been Heads of Colledges in the Universities or Vicechancellors or Leaders of Forces have given occasion to be termed Antichristian as well as Lord-Bishops if Lordly Dignity and Secular Rule merit that appellation As for 1 Pet. 5.3 the Annotation in the Book of the Annotations in English termed the Assemblies is thus Lords that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions instead of the Doctrine of the Gospel nor carrying themselves insolently and magisterially towards Gods people 3 John ver 9. which imports not an Office forbidden but the evil practice of them whose Office is allowed For this very Exhortation is given to those who were Elders among the Christians even St. Peter who entitles himself a fellow Elder to them and therefore contains not a Precept forbidding the Office of a Lord Bishop any more than of an Elder such as St. Peter was but the abuse of the Office nor doth it forbid Lordly Dignity but Lordly Rule whereas Bishops Rule should be Pedo non Sceptro not as Princes but as Shepherds If any Prelate use such Rule it is not his Office but his Practice which is to be termed Antichristian Sect. 7. The Office of Lord-Bishops not from the Papacy But this Author proceeds Not to multiply Arguments in a matter that others have so largely debated 2. That Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian if the Pope be the head of Antichrist this must not be denied But the Office of Lord-Bishops is derived from is only to be found in the Papacy Which of the Reformed Churches that have separated from the Papacy have retained it Did the woman in her flight into the Wilderness carry it along with her What more absurd then to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministry and what more evident demonstration of its being an Antichristian Office than its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church and its utter rejection and detestation by the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ in all ages What is delivered over to us in this matter by some of them we shall briefly affix hereunto Hierome in his Epistle to Evagrius and in his Commentary on the Epistle of Titus professes That it is more by custom than by any institution of the Lord that Bishops are become greater than the Elders or Ministers Harm of Conf. Sect. 2. Tit. 11. So from him do the Churches of Helvetia proclaim whence they infer and that truly according to Act. 4.9 That no man by any right can forbid but that we should return to the old appointment of God and rather receive that than the custom devised by men Wickliff in his Answer to King Richard the Second citing Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 sayes Lordship and Dominion is plainly forbidden to the Apostles and darest thou then usurp the same If thou wilt be a Lord thou shalt lose thy Apostleship c. The University of Geneva say Theses Genev. 71. These functions following we hold to be altogether false and destitute of all true foundation viz. the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Churches the Cardinalship Patriarchship Archiepiscopalship and briefly the whole degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders Marlorat in his Exposition on the Revel chap. 17.3 sayes That Archbishops Deans c. are in Office under Antichrist yea upon Chap. 9. that they are the tails of Antichrist Beza saith They could not be brought into the Church until they had driven him out who is the only Master Christ and there is neither holy Scripture nor Council nor antient Doctors which ever did know such Monsters Beza's Confess Art 7.14 The noble antient Oldcastle Lord Cobham saith That the whole Episcopal degree of Lord Bishops over their fellow Elders is altogether false and destitute of all true foundation yea that all other Functions and Offices besides Priests and Deacons are unlawful as being Sects devised by men destitute of all true foundation To these we might add honest Bale upon the Revelation viz. chap. 17. where he saith Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrist's Metropolitans and Primates and upon Chap. 13. that Archbishop Diocesan Archdeacon Dean Prebend Doctors Parson Vicar c. are very names of blasphemy For Offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost nor yet mentioned in the Scripture Cartwright sayes of them that their Functions are not in the Word of God but of the Earth new devised Ministries and such as can do no good that their Office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchy come out of the bottomless pit of Hell Fenner proclaims them to be no natural members of the body of Christs Church as being of humane addition not born with her nor grown up with her from the Cradle The French and Belgick Confession sayes That they pass not a rush for them The Church of Geneva That the Hierarchie is Devilish confusion stablished as it were in despight of God and to the mocking and reproach of all Christian Religion The Seekers of Reformation in Q. Elizabeths time spake fully hereunto 2 Adm. to Parl. we have an Antichristian and Popish ordering of Priests strange from Gods Word never heard of in the Primitive Church taken out of the Popes Shop to the destruction of Gods Kingdom The Names and Offices of Archbishops Archdeacons Lord Bishops c. are together with their Government drawn out of the Popes Shop Antichristian Devilish and contrary to the Scriptures Parsons Vicars Parish-Priests are birds of the same feather to whom might be added many others Answ. 1. Though the Pope in these later ages especially since Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor more than 600 years after Christ that Rome the seat of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the head of all Churches should be both so called and accounted of all as Platina speaks and as Onuphrius addes Had the title of Universal Bishop conferred on him and it was added that the name of Pope which was
Answ. Though I doubt not but I could retort this Argument upon this Authour whom by sundry passages in this Book I judge to be one that hearkens not to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Order and Ordinance of his house even that most express Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. one of the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and part of the foundation Heb. 6.1 2. Yet I shall wave that and answer directly by denying the major of which I give these reasons 1. Because denial is more than not hearkning to the one is by positive contradiction the other may be only by Omission 2. The not hearkning may be out of ignorance incapacity to understand dulness slothfulness fearfulness mistakes prevalency of temptation without any enmity of heart habitual stubbornness or willful gainsaying which are requisite to a plain denial of the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ. 3. There may be sundry Orders of his House revealed by Christ which are controverted whether they be such or no there may be some acknowledged to be Orders of his House yet thought not of such moment as that the peace of the Church should be broken by contending for them or judged not perpetual but temporary or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrate reform as in the case of putting down Images or conceiving in cases of necessity or for avoiding of Scandal they may not hearken to them as in Davids eating the Shew-bread the Apostle Pauls not hearkning to the Order of discontinuing Circumcision and a Jewish Vow and Offering in these and perhaps more cases a person may not hearken to the Revelation Christ hath made and as supreme Lord and Law-giver hath enjoyned to be observed touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House and yet be so far from denying the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ that he may be sound in the Faith and a zealous and faithful maintainer of them by holding forth the truth of the Gospel unto the death And therefore I take the major proposition of this Argument to be manifestly false which he seems by not proving to take for manifest truth Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Soveraign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers But he goes on thus 'T is the minor or second Proposition that in the thoughts of some is capable of a denial but the verity thereof shines forth as the Sun in its brightness in the review of the Orders and Ordinances of the House of Christ appointed by himself and the present frame and deportment of the present Ministers of England with respect thereunto which of them have they not made void by their Traditions This is that which Christ hath said 1. That all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Mat. 28.19 1 Tim. 6.14 15. Joh. 3.35 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 'T is upon this foot of account that Christ chargeth his Disciples not to be called of men Rabbi nor to call any Father viz. not to impose their authority upon any or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God Mat. 23.8 9 10. because one is their Master and Lord viz. Christ. Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ 1 Cor. 11.23 and 14.37 Proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel Gal. 1.8 yea though Angels from Heaven should they live and speak as such charge those to whom they write not to receive any into their houses that bring any other doctrine much more not to receive them as their Teachers 2 Joh. 10. Yea the Spirit of the Lord in the close of the last Revelation of his Will it pleased this great King and Law-giver in such a way to give forth testifies that if any man shall add unto these things the Lord shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in his Book Rev. 22.18 Do the present Ministers of England conform unto this great Institution in words indeed they do so But what meaneth the bleating of the Sheep and lowing of the Oxen in our ears Do they not own other Lords Heads and Governours that have a Law-making power and would enforce the Consciences of the free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him what doth this less than evidently proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and the rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them But of this more hereafter Answ. It is no strange thing to find in this Author high Charges backed only with confident assertions and no proofs so that men comparing the one with the other may think he wrote his Dreams rather than Meditations For what are we to think otherwise when we read such passages as these the verity of his minor proposition shines forth as the Sun in his brightness Which is no more than is to be said of the first universal indubitable principles of the light of Nature or Reason which are indisputable and yet he saith in the thoughts of some it is capable of a denial and when he should prove it so clear in stead of an Argument proves all with Interrogations which if the Reader deny he is put to a stand But to shew the vanity of his arguings to his Question which of the Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not the present Ministers of England he means all even the best of them as his words ch 2. and arguings against them indiscriminatim do evince have they not made void by their Traditions I answer by another Question Which of them have they so made void Sure the Ordinances of searching the Scriptures hearing the Word praying to the Father in the name of Christ believing on the Son with many more which are the chief Orders and Ordinances of the house of Christ appointed by himself have not been made void by the Traditions of the Ministers of England that now are at least not by all or the best of them that I know or hear of But he imagines he can prove it by an induction of particulars of which he names only seven though to make his induction full without which it is no good Argument he should have reckoned seven times seven But perhaps he thinks if he can make good the charge in these seven it will be without question his charge is true of the rest Let us then view each of these in order and see how well he hath acquitted himself therein The first of these Orders or Ordinances of Christ is that all power for the Calling Institution Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in him as the alone Lord Soveraign Ruler and Head thereof Which I grant as a truth though I assent not to
his Paraphrase on Mat. 23.8 9 10. as if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God which they did Act 15.25 28. But how comes this to be an Order Ordinance Institution of the house of Christ appointed by himself Such Orders I took to be Precepts of Christ to us but this seems to be Gods gift to him Mat. 28.18 Joh. 3.35 and 5.22 26 27. and 17.2 Acts 3.22 and 5.31 Ephes. 1.22 c. no Precept to us But let it imply a Precept to us Do not the present Ministers of England conform to it He grants they do so in words but not in deeds Why so They own other Lords that have a Lawâ—making power and would enforce the Consciences of the Free-born Subjects of Christ over his Churches besides him and thereby proclaim their disobedience and rebellion which is as the sin of Witchcraft against the King of Kings and their rejection of his Scepter and Soveraign Authority over them This is a high charge and if true would unchristen them but I see no proof of it so that I take this to be only a piece of Oratory such as Tertullus used against St. Paul Acts 24. which is so much the more venomous in that it is in generalibus without instancing in particulars which is the sign of a Diabolical Calumniatour Yet I shall not let it pass The Lords he means are either the King or the Bishops The King is owned by the Ministers in the Oath of Supremacie the Bishops in the promise at their Ordination wherein they promise the Lord being their helper to obey reverently their Ordinary and other Ministers unto whom is committed the charge and government over them following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions and submitting themselves to their godly judgements The Law-making power of the King is with the Parliament of the Bishops in the Convocation the enforcing of the Conscience though it be an uncouth phrase as supposing the Conscience can be enforced by man which is impossible is meant of Causative Compulsion by enjoyning men to act or speak according to such Statutes or Canons as are imposed on them under certain penalties How many and which of these Acts or Speeches are rebellion and rejection of Christs Authority is to be demonstrated and not persons of place and Authority to be thus criminated after the manner of Railers and Scolds And sure it is not easie to prove that though such Acts and Speeches were imagined to be such Rebellion yet that they are so in them unless it could be proved they did them presumptuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a proud heart and an high hand which if this Author hath not learned the Maxime Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit methinks he should tremble to attempt But sith he tells us of this more hereafter I intend to observe his motion He goes on Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the Will of Christ by not joyning in the Separation pleaded for 2. Saith he This great Prophet and King hath also revealed and proclaimed That 't is his Will that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World walk together in particular Societies and Churches having given up themselves to the Lord and one another according to the Will of God for their mutual edification and comfort in the Lord. The truth of this soveraign Institution of Christ he that runs may read in the Scriptures hereunto annexed 1 Cor. 1.2 and 5.12 2 Cor. 6.17 Rev. 18.4 Joh. 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 Phil. 1.5 Acts 2.41 and 17.4 2 Cor. 8.5 with many more In the proof of this we might be copious but that we study brevity The diligent Reader knows where to find this Theam at large treated of by learned Ainsworth Bartlet Cotton Rogers c. How do the Ministers of England acquit themselves in respect of this solemn appointment of the Lord alass who sees not that they are in their practice at open defiance herewith have it in derision and contempt making no difference betwixt the Holy and Prophane admitting persons led captive by the Devil at his will that openly blaspheme the spirit of the Lord and deride its effectual operation in the Consciences of men into their society Are any too vile except such as truly fear God and desire to press after holiness to be admitted by them into their Communion Is not their Church-state so unlike is it to the Institution of Christ a very Babel a Den of Dragons and Hold of unclean Beasts Answ. This Crimination proceeds on these suppositions 1. That Christians should separate from the Parish Assemblies and joyn together in the Congregational way by Church-Covenant which they call separating from the World 2. That Ministers are bound to reject and not to admit to the Communion those that are profane and to admit only real Saints in the judgment of Charity and that by opposing the way of separation and promiscuous admission to the Communion they infringe the solemn appointment of the Lord. For my part having read somewhat in Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Cottons Writings both concerning the way of the Separatists in the Low-Countries and the Independents in New-England I do not either in the Scriptures here alledged find such a solemn appointment of Christ either that private persons or Ministers are to make such a Separation as these Authors do press upon the Consciences of others nor hath experience either in the Low-Countries or Old or New-England given such encouragement to sober minded Christians as to engage them in that way but rather many divisions declinings into errour and other evils have given too much cause for men to doubt whether it were ever a Plant of Gods planting It is granted that it is the will of Christ that those whom he hath called by his Word should separate from the World And this they are to do in respect of their Worship so as not to have Communion with them therein and this I doubt not may be proved from 2 Cor. 6.17 and some other of the Texts alledged But then by the World are meant professed Infidels such as denied the Lord Jesus and worshipped Idols or at least such as were professed Unbelievers as John 15.19 and 17.6 Acts 2.40 and 19.9 the Jews were and yet the Apostles did not refuse to go to the Temple to pray nor to go into their Synagogues or to take a Vow and purifie themselves at the Temple notwithstanding the corruptions of their Priests Service and People and their open opposition to the Christian Faith But that ever it was the Will of Christ that Christians should separate from the true Worship of God and the Professors of true Faith in Christ because of either known evil in the Coversation of those present or only suspected or reported is without all colour of Precept or Example in the Holy Scripture It is true the people of God are invited Rev.
with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians and so may not partake of the table of Devils ver 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples but that so many or a number above two are necessary so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament cannot be thence inferred 1 Cor. 11.33 Acts 20.7 do prove it should be administred when all Communicants come together but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament if but two be together specially in a case extraordinary may be questioned As Acts 2.42 it is said They continued in breaking of bread so ver 46. it is said they did it from house to house therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house but by companies in several houses and so as they could commodiously which is an argument that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament if the thing appointed by Christ be done Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 1. That a prescript Form of words in Prayer a ceremonius pompous Worship devised by man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New-Testament dispensation contrary to Mat. 15.9 and 28.20 John 4.23 Deut. 12.32 Jer. 51.26 Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God and that it may lawfully be used with promise to use it is the Book of Common-prayer This Author impeacheth it as contrary to the will of God and not to be lawfully used under the New-Testament dispensation 1. Because there is a prescript From of words in prayer 2. The worship is Ceremonious 3. That it is Pompous 4. Devised by man 5. Abused to Idolatry What part of it is or was abused to Idolatry should have been expressed If he mean kneeling at the Lords Supper that is his tenth instance to be considered again if that which is said already in answer to this Chapter Sect. 3. be not sufficient if he mean the whole Book because out of the Popes Portuis that is answered before in answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 4. His allegation of Jer. 51.26 seems to be brought to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God abused to Idolatry But it is so impertinent that were any conscience made how Scripture is applyed or shame to abuse Readers with texts impertinent it had been omitted it being only a prediction of the ruine of the City of Babylon not of the Temple of the Idol that it should not be built again by reason of the Opression and Idolatry of the Inhabitants not a prohibition to the Jews that they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem because abused to Idolatry Why the worship of the Common Prayer is termed Ceremonious or Pompous is left to be ghessed If he mean it as it is used in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels there is no constitution for it as such to which Ministers are required to subscribe if because of the ceremony of the Surplice and Cross and the Singing of Psalms or because it is with external words and gestures the first of these being an adjunct only to the Minister doth not make the Worship it self Ceremonius or Pompous and the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed Worship the third methinks should be allowed as commanded Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against nor are they contrary to John 4.23 which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law and that which is only external and so hypocritical otherwise external Worship is required 1 Cor. 6.20 But I suppose the chief exception is that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words devised by man which he conceives contrary to the other texts alledged by him how pertinently is to be considered To Mat. 15 9. and Deut. 12.32 answer is made Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Mat. 28.20 requires Teachers to teach Disciples of Christ to observe all that he hath commanded But proves not that no prescript Form of Prayer devised by man may be lawfully used For then it would follow that conceived Forms of Prayer may not be used for they are devised by men they are not immediately from Gods Spirit as is apparent by the phrases and matter oft times used nor are they commanded by Christ but rather a set Form is commanded to wit the Lords Prayer Luke 11.2 and therefore the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Christs revelation Mat. 28.20 For all that Christ hath commanded may be observed by those who use it and it is more agreeable to Christs command to use one prescript Form of words of Prayer which he hath directed Mat. 6.7 8 9. Rom. 8.26 is more impertinently alledged For it is not said The Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting to us the Form of words we shall use but by making known what things we shall ask in his secret impulse on our spirits not in ordinary motions of our tongues and by exciting in us grones and sighes that are unutterable and therefore this text is so far from proving that it is unlawful to use a prescript Form of words in Publick Prayer because of this promise of the Spirit to suggest without meditation such words as shall be spoken that it is quite another thing which is here meant First it is not meant of publick Prayers but of secret private Prayers Secondly it is not meant of private ordinary Prayers but as Cameron in his Treatise of the nature and condition of the Church observes The Apostle distinguisheth some and those singular Prayers of Believers from the rest to wit when the minde constituted in anguish and the same erected by trust in God prayes as wrapt beyond it self such as were Moses his Prayers who when he is not said to have prayed in Scripture yet God so be speaks him as if he had cryed to wit the Spirit did pray in Moses the understanding prayed not the Spirit that is the understanding conceived not distinctly the prayers And 1 Cor. 14.15 which is the other place cited by this Author I will sing with the spirit I will sing also with the mind To wit I believe none sings with the will for to sing is a work of the understanding but the Apostle hath opposed the Spirit to the Understanding because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected as that it cannot distinctly explain what it hath conceived Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts that he who speaketh with tongues that
is with the Spirit pray that he may interpret that is not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies such as the Prophets sometimes had and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1 2 3 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation Thirdly the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words because it is said the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and 1 Cor. 14.15 is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith Fourthly The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self v. 14. and not to be affected of it self nor can be a matter of duty sith it is motus liberi spiritus as the School-men speak rightly a motion of the free Spirit such as lumen propheticum prophetical illumination is which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it not our duty to acquire it Upon all which reasons it is apparent that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man because of the Spirits help Rom. 8.26 praying in the Spirit 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers and of praying in words unpremeditated as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation 8. That wicked and ungodly persons and their seed are lawful members of the Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psal. 110.3 Acts 2.40 41 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14 17. and 9.13 Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance not know I where to find either It is said Psal. 110.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power But it doth not therefore follow that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts or other penalties to come to Common Prayer or the Communion For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience and toleration in the New Testament yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled if so neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God and to stand to it 2 Chron. 34.32 If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people but not that no other may be lawful members or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people which I think none now can do It is true Acts 2.40 Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian nor compelled thereunto I discern not Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship and to the Passover if not to the Lords Supper Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members Simon Magus baptized we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper of disorderly Corinthians And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship and other evils if Parents may correct these in their children Princes may do it in their Subjects and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion so may Princes The separation Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life but because of divers who were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion The words 2 Cor. 6.14 whether we read it be not unequally yoked or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels and whether we expound it of marriage or familiar converse or as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols do plainly evince it to be meant do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols which he had forbidden 1 Cor. 8.7 10. to partake of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 it is manifest from v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer though of vitious life Nor can the separation from among men v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13 is less to the purpose For what shew of consequence is there in this Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection or the subjection of their Confession or consent to the Gospel of Christ therefore wicked persons and such as consent not willingly are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church nor may be compelled thereto It is added 9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 Matth. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 62. saith somewhat for it yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book the words lawful Minister were added which still continue the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution nor owned by the present Ministers that I know and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited Yet thus much may be said that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 and from baptizing Mat. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four
thereupon and so his distinction as to this thing is rather to be accounted vain and idle than the fear he mentions were the distinction good yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil we must abstain from all appearance of evil whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self or imaginary by accident through others interpretation which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number Yea 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees the Apostles preaching to the Jews yea to good men as Peters going in to Cornelius Acts 11.1 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty may seem evil to good Subjects the obeying Laws of Governours Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted but weak in judgment yea the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly learned and otherwise judicious Divines If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties Gods Laws will cross one another and we must infringe or suspend one or otherwise be necessitated to sin Governours must revoke their Laws and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow Lastly Were the precept so meant that we must abstain from every thing of ours which is an appearance of evil to another our Christian liberty were evacuated there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other and many things lawful and indifferent will appear evil even to the best It s true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty of which before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others but to the scandal that is ruine or harm to another consequent thereon And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text 1 Thess. 5.22 I wrote thus p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another yet no Interpreter that I meet with understands it of such appearance of evil as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such Or by reason of the meer phansie or rigid austerity or evil will or such like cause of him that thinks it evil but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil as are means of drawing to some notorious sin as going to hear a Mass which is a cause and sign of Idolatry or wanton dalliance which is a cause or sign of whoredom And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil but also from the suspition of it So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason upon some ground or none And to speak truth the application of this Text in that manner as it is by some as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self when it appears as evil to another without any further restraint is very absurd and so unreasonable as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born sith there is scarce any thing a man can do but some or other Infidel or Christian weak or strong in the faith Orthodox or Superstitious will think it to be evil that saying by experience being found true quot homines tot sententiae so many men so many minds nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World Out of all which I gather that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to this positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it unless it be in it self evil or evil in their own opinion or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter p. 40. does not say though some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god In answering which passage sect 2. of this Chapter I shewed that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions as for other reasons very clear and convincing so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion which I here subjoyn Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy râ—ceivers and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places then one Thus the Common Prayer Book That which is said that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper cap. 21. p. 67. p. 479. of the Rejoynder where he thus saith With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people But with the Papists the Pope when himself performeth the office receiveth sitting as being a type of Christ the Mass Priests receive standing reverently by the Canon of the Mass and for this he cites in the Margin Ord. Rom. apud Bâ—bl Pat. Col. â—om 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter â— edit Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do as did also the Priest till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation bâ—got the
I must confess that however he thinks that by a serious observation of the characters which are given in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost it will be made exceeding perspicuous and evident yet to my understanding he hath made neither of his charges perspicuous or evident in any degree For 1. His charge is against all the present Ministers of England and therefore his proof should have been of that which all even the best of them are guilty of taken from that which they all unanimously agree in and practice and not from things which may perhaps be personally objected against some but not against the whole order 2. The Characters which he gives should have been such as are convertible so as that it may be truly said all that have these Characters are false Prophets and false Priests and all false Prophets and false Priests have them 3. He should have told us whether each of these is convertible or all of them if not which they might have and not be false Prophets 4. His proof being of matter of fact should have better testimony then his own assertion or interrogations that may be denied 5. His Characters are such as perhaps the Ministers may tell him Physitian heal thy self Novimus qui te We can prove if not the same yet as bad Characters or properties of false Prophets or false Priests in those you allow to be heard even in your Instituted Churches though we rake not up out of the ashes what was charged on the Brownists of old or of late by Edwards Bailey and others on the Independents 6. That which is the chief Character of a false Prophet 2 Pet 2.1 and other passages before recited the bringing in damnable Heresies denying the Lord that bought them is wholly omitted without which what else he chargeth them with will be insufficient to prove them false Prophets or to warrant the refusal of hearing them But will occasion the Ministers to charge him with the Schism of Donatists of confining the Church and Ministry to their party and if these things be done with a factious unquiet spirit as they take them to be tending to hinder the good of souls in not embracing their Ministry and the peace of both Church and State with a fury like that of the Circumcellions or at least an humour of reviling or uncharitable censuring But whatever were the Authors motives I shall examine them as they are presented because this argument if it were made good is instar omnium and the only genuine reason why the present Ministers should not be heard For the first I grant that Jerem. 23 21. is a signal character of a false Prophet and that a mission from the Lord is of the essence of a lawful Ministry that whoever wants such a mission is no Officer of Christ but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist and that this exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle Rom. 10.15 But I deny 1. That by the sending here is meant the mediate regular outward calling 2. That the regular outward mediate calling is only from a rightly constituted Church of Christ in his sense that is after the Congregational way or by succession from the Church in the wilderness that is such as have been separated from the Church of Rome after its Apostasie 3. That either an immediate or such a mediate mission are of the essence of a lawful Minister 4. That any of these can any way be deduced from Jer. 23.21 or Rom. 10.15 5. I say it is contrary to his own grant ch 2. to make an outward mission of the essence of a lawful Minister sith he expresly allows gifted Brethren who have not such mission to Preach and to be heard As for inward immediate calling he is no judge of it and it may be as well acknowledged in the Ministers as in his Gifted Brethren As for the Texts it is clear from the text it self that their running before they were sent was in that they Preached in Gods name what he did not command or deliver to them so that their false Prophecying was not for defect of outward calling but for their taking upon them to deliver that message as from God which they received not from him Which the words plainly shew Jer. 23.21.22 I have not sent these Prophets yet they ran which is explained by the next words I have not spoken to them yet they Prophesied and in the next verse But if they had stood in my counsel and had caused my people to hear my words then they c. where their not being sent of God is expressed by Gods not speaking to them their not standing in his Counsel making his people to hear words which were not his termed after v. 25. Prophecying lies in his name v. 26. Prophets of the deceit of their own heart ver 30. stealing his words every one from his neighbour ver 32. prophecying false dreams ver 36. perverting the words of the living God All which passages and the whole Chapter shew that their running when God sent them not was not in that they had not an outward calling but in that they prophesied that as from God which they had not from him but was of their own invention lies perverting Gods word and that this is meant by not sending is manifest in that ver 32. these are put as equipollent I sent them not nor commanded them and v. 38. I have sent unto you saying ye shall not say the burden of the Lord where sending is expressed to be saying what they should not speak Which might be further proved out of Jerem. 14.14 and the plain words Jerem. 28.9 The Prophet which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him Whence it is plain that the mission of God is known by the word delivered which if it be according to Gods minde a person cannot be judged a false Prophet nor without mission from him Nor can the sending Rom. 10.15 be otherwise meant For the words imply a person cannot preach except he be sent But this is not true of mediate outward calling for those that were scattered went every where preaching the word Acts 8.4 and so do gifted brethren without such a calling But he is not sent who doth preach another Gospel and he is sent who doth preach the Gospel as the words following intimate How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things Which I would not have understood as if an outward regular calling were not necessary for him that takes on him the publick function of preaching or that every one were to be permitted to do so that did intrude into it But that the speaking of Gods word whether in private or publick is with such a mission as acquits him that preacheth it from being a false Prophet and the hearer from
according to the word of God but after the prescript of man for the matter of their doctrine they may be false Prophets but this is not so much as offered to be proved concerning the present Ministers of England and therefore it is untruly said that it cannot be denied that there is a perfect harmony between them and those false Prophets As for their removals from places of less to places of greater value it is a thing which may be objected to Preachers and Pastors of the Congregational Churches and may be upon just cause and therefore of it self proves not so much as a covetous minde whether it be out of gaping and greedy desire after preferments God may be the only judge If preparing War be meant of suing for their dues by Law it may be just nor is a Minister bound to live upon alms or voluntary contribution the Elders of the separated Churches have found by experience how great a misery it is for a Student though godly and painful to live of the benevolence of their Churches nor is it any sin for a Minister more than for another man to make use of the Magistrate and Law to gain his due according to the Law of the Land And however some have instilled into peoples heads the unlawfulness of requiring or paying Tithes or other dues to the present Ministers as they did before to Non-Conformists yet there is no colourable plea for not paying them it being not unlawful for me to pay what is unjustly demanded there being therein no doing of wrong though there should be a suffering of wrong And therefore it is but vainly pretended that they cannot in conscience put into Ministers mouths when there is no appearance of sin in doing it and if their Consciences be misled by erroneous Casuists poor men may thank them for their vexations and beware of hearkening to them and not clamour against the Ministers as the only cause of their trouble if out of meer obstinacy they deny to pay they are to blame themselves It is added 6. That they sadden the hearts of the righteous Ezek. 13.22 what need I turn aside to make application of this to the Prophets of this day who that is serious doth not experiment the truth thereof in his own soul to see the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned the ceremonies and inventions of man subjected unto by such as pretend to be Ministers of Christ would make an heart of stone to bleed much more those whose hearts are made tender by the Lord. Those of our Brethren that as yet attend upon their Ministry will tell us they are troubled at their compliance and conformity All that look in the least after reformation say they could wish it were otherwise so that this character also is visibly upon them Answer By lyes sadning the hearts of the righteous as Ezek. 13.22 is granted to be a character of a false Prophet but this Author omits that and makes that a character of a false Prophet which is not and applies that to the Ministers which he goes not about to prove they are guilty of Perhaps those righteous persons he means are sadned out of mistakes as conceiving the Name and Ordinances of God prophaned when they are not as the Israelites were when they mistook the Reubenites fact in building an Altar Josh. 22.11 12. Perhaps it may be without their fault perhaps the Ministers are sadned as well as they perhaps the sadness is from such erroneous suggestions as are instilled into the people by such as hold the same principles of separation with this Author perhaps men as righteous as they who are sadned do without any sadness attend upon their Ministry perhaps they are sadned that they stumble at that they need not perhaps they are more sad at such principles of division as pervert them that are counted otherwise righteous than at any thing they perceive practised by the Ministers of England If sadning the hearts of righteous by the inventions of men be a character of false Prophets and that for it the Ministers of England are to be judged such the renting of errors and fancies which have been in the Congregational Churches and even by their Teachers the many unnecessary scruples janglings oppositions arrogant wilful carriages deceitful and unrighteous dealings in Members which have sadned the hearts of many sober and better composed spirits and made them weary of their societies the heart bleedings for professors abominations are indeed as signal characters of false Prophets in their Churches as of the Ministers in the Church of England being such Though there were an utter oblivion of what of old was done by Separatists in England the Low Countries in new England yet what hath been done in England in our times and is yet in the memory of many yet alive should have stopped this Authors mouth and made him forbear to object that against the Ministers of England which may perhaps more fully be retorted on those whose Ministry he would have attended on The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches meeting at the Savoy Octob. 12. 1658. in the Preface to the decclaration of their Faith and Order do of their own accord say It is true that many sad miscarriages divisions breaches fallings off from the holy Ordinances of God have along in this time of temptation especially in the beginning of it been found in some of our Churches Yea such insinuations as this Author urgeth against the Ministers of England would have proved not only the Ministers of the reformed Churches of late but even the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia the teachers of the Churches of Corinth and other the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets But I forbear He addes 7. That they mix the word of God with their dreams Jer. 23.25.29 in the Margin The notes on Matth. 28. in the foresaid Translation are Here do all Preachers learn what they should teach nothing else but Gods word nothing else but that the Lord hath commanded them not their own dreams and inventions So do the present Ministers of England as hath been proved Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Answ. This needs no further answer than what is before given 8. Saith he That they come in Sheeps cloathing having the horns of a Lamb but are inwardly ravening Wolves and speak like Dragons i. e. pretend to the Holiness and Meekness of Christ and Saints but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty yea terrible in their Edicts and Laws stirring up and making use of the powers of the world to persecute kill and destroy the Saints Mat. 7.15 Revel 13.11 which second Beast is no other than the false Prophet mentioned Revel 19.20 as might easily be demonstrated As face answers face in a glass so do the present Ministers of England the false Prophets there spoken of Are not all the Persecutions Imprisonments Slaughters and Butcheries of
2 Chron. 6.41 2 Chron. 5.13 2 Chron. 29.30 In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11 Ezra 3.11 Zech. 3.2 Jude 9. Revel 12.3 4. Revel 15. 3. Hos. 14.2 3. Isai. 12.1 Deut. 21.8 and 26.5.10 Isai. 26.1 Mr. Ainsworth himself than whom none was more opposite to any set Form as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget the Reasons in the Separatists Apology p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer to which Mr. Paget hath answered in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists p. 69. c. in his Annot on Exod. 12.8 reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover saith Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference when it speaketh of the cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10.16 And of singing an Hymn Mark 14 26. And after These Observations of the Jews while their Common-wealth stood and to this day may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept as why they lay down one leaning on anothers bosome John 13.23 a sign of rest and security and stood not as at the first Passover neither sate on high as we use Why Christ rose from supper and washed and sate down again John 13.4 5.12 Why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart and for the cup or wine apart Mark 14.22 23. And why it is said He took the cup after supper Luke 22.20 Also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end Mat. 26.30 And why Paul calleth it the shewing forth of the Lords death 1 Cor. 11.26 As the Jews usually called their Passover Haggadah that is Shewing or Declaration From which Observations we may gather that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing which is a part of Prayer which the Jews without particular command of God had taken up And that St. Paul alludes to them expressing the use of Christians by the phrases of the Jews which shews the Christians used their forms Yea that the Apostles in many things of their ministry retained the customes in their Synagogues in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Government is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum part 2 d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden Dr. Lightfoot Dr Hammond Mr. Thorndike and many others Which things do abundantly prove that this Author doth too too inconsiderately write That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service in the worship of God to be found in the New Testament No not in the whole Book of God amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles and some of the Ancients Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them as they have been in the later ages only this I say which is sufficient for the present purpose 1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2 d. Apology to Antâ—ninus That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had ability the people testifying their consent by saying Amen Nor the words of Tertullian alleged by this Author out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour looking towards Heaven and without a monitor because from the heart do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections or duration of prayers which may be in stinted forms nor is it unlikely but that thanksgivings were some of them such as in their Psalms which they sung which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age and those it is likely were stinted forms And they might pray without a monitor or prompter which excludes the suggestion of others and from the heart includes of their own accord and yet pray in stinted expressions Yea the things mentioned that they prayed for seem to intimate Set forms agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for 2. However it is apparent if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer that Christians did and conceived they ought in publique prayer to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer and that they had some other forms then whieh are still retained which those words intimate Therefore also the Priest a Preface being premised before Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that when the people answer We lift them up to the Lord they may be minded that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words was sure thought on in Cyprians time and that this Author writes too confidently when he saith The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found nor were thought of in those times It follows Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer To which we add 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints is not a worship that is of his appointment But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship Therefore That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church Officers as signal characters of his love to and care of it will not be denied Ephes 4.11 is an evidence hereof beyond exception That to thâ—se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications every way suiting the emplâ—yment he called them forth unto cannot without a most horrid advance against the wisdome faithfulness love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul be gainsaid That he not only expects but solemnly charges upon these Officers an improvement of the gifts bestowed upon them for the edification of his Body is evidently compriz'd and very frequently remarked in the Scripture 2 Tim. 1.6 1 Cor. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 Prov. 17.16 Luke 19.20 To imagine after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that should shut out of doors as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given by him to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house is such an imputation of folly to him as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him absit blasphemia if the Common-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment The exercise of the gift of Prayer to mention no more being wholly excluded hereby Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For
judge meet All unproved Of the last of we have already spoken and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof Touching the First That there are sâ—me things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such we crave liberty to deny which till the proof be attempted may suffice Circumstances in the worship of Christ attending religious actions as actions we grant but circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To inferr that because time and place with sundry things of the like nature are circumstances in Worship therefore there are circumstances of Worship as such is frivolâ—us Those things being the attendments of religious actions common to any civil actions of the like nature to be performed by the Sons of men No action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place Publick Prayer being so to be managed as a religious action hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it and so it would were it a meer civil action to be performed by a community though it related not at all to the Worship of God Answ. It is not true that the Objection supposeth That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such meaning that any particularity of that action which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship being instituted by him is a meer arbitrary circumstance and not a necessary part of that Worship It is held in the Lords Supper and all institutions of Christ in which particularities are expressed there should be strict observation of them as part of the Worship But in things not determined liberty is allowed to vary and therefore if Christ have not instituted that you shall pray without a Book or set Form Prayer by it may be lawfully done The distinction of circumstances in and of the Worship of Christ of religiâ—us actions as actions or as religiâ—us aâ—e but unnecessary niceâ—ies so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest That the praying in this or that Form is not a part of the Worship as if without it the Worship were not or not according to Christs institution but an accident of it which may adesse vel abesse which is in effect if â— understand this Author the same which he grants That there are circumstances in the Wâ—rship of Christ attending religiâ—us actions as actions which are not in their particulaâ—ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing it is but frivolous to wrangle about words Sect. 9. Praying in a Form may be praying in the Spirit 2. Saith this Author That t is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer is not yet proved nor like to be t is too large a field for us to enter into nor is it needful to do so till it be proved That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so Yet in transitu we crave leave humbly to offer That to pray in a Form as before explained is altogether unlawful being 1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer 2ly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God 3ly Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall 4ly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form t is lawful either because they have not the Spirit or that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God If the first they are not Saints Rom. 8.9 To assert the second is little less than blasphemy besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26 Answ. The position of this Author here by his words appears to be That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers but also for all Saints all that have the Spirit of God to pray in a Form And though he seems to mean by his addition that he counts it only then unlawful when they tye themselves â— whether by vow or customary use or once only to a stinted form of words in Prayer without variation written not conceived by him that prays and kept in his memory Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form by any Saint conceived by himself and kept in memory without writing though but once used For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched its donation is rendred useless it s against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift improving our Talent disabling the Spirit which are at no time to be done And if so no way of Worship of Christs institution and therefore Idolatrous and by this Authors Doctrine to be separated from and therefore this Authors principles carry him not only to separate from hearing the present Ministers but also from every Saint that not only often but once useth a set Form devised by himself in Family exercises as before meals or other times And if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind in the controversie between him and Mr. Râ—binson of old he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer or in private stinted forms of Prayer except they profess their repentance And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgy which seems no hard thing to do if we suppose the Ministers and Common-Prayer Book Worshippers not to have the Spirit for then by his Arguments they do not quench make useless neglect the gift of the Spirit and therefore are not forbidden a stinted Form which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers yet we must do somewhat more we must prove it lawful for the Saints who have the Spirit to use once a stinted form of words though it be the Lords Prayer only Which I think will be done by this Argument That Prayer may be lawful to Saints in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto but such may be praying in a Form Therefore To what this Author humbly offers I answer 1. That the things he offers proceed only upon mistakes That the praying the Spirit Ephes. 6.18 Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost is meant of extemporal unpremeditated unprescribed forms of words Whereas praying in the Spirit is meant of praying by the operation of the Spirit within not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed which may be gathered concerning the former Text in that the Prayers there which are to be in the Spirit are all alwayes with all prayer and supplication watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers than such as are
solitary of which many are only ejaculatory without words And this is confirmed by the words Ephes 5 19. where the effect of being filled with the Spirit is the speaking to themselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody to the Lord in their heart Besides as all the directions Ephâ—s 6.13 14 15 16 17. are precepts of what each Christian should do by and for himself so is v. 18. and so if not solely yet chiefly meant of solitary Prayers to which words are not necessary and therefore praying in the Spirit is by the operation of the Spirit in the heart not by the Spirits immediate forming of words in the tongue And the same is to be said of Jude 20. Of 1 Cor. 14.15 I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. 2. The ability to express petitions in words extemporary unpremeditated is termed the Spirit of Prayer as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God and they only for so the alleging Rom. 8.9.26 for it in the 4 th Argument must inferr But who knows not by experience that many that have not the Spirit of God have yet this ability to admiration as is related by Camden Saravia the Author of the relation of the conspiracy concerning Hacket in Q Elizabeths time and many others And on the other side many whose holiness of life shewed they had the Spirit yet not this ability and therefore it is ill called the Spirit of Prayer whereby many unwary souls are ensnared with the opinion as if such as can express themselves fluently in words largely and with shew of affection were immediately moved by the Spirit and they distill thereby into many inconsiderate persons errours and evil principles Whereas it is acknowledged to be but an acquired ability with help of natural endowments and many times is proved to be but a counterfeit and deceitful practice Now then in answer to each of the particulars I say 1. That the Spirit is not quenched as is forbidden 1 Thes. 5.19 by a set Form of Prayer used by another and read out of a Book any otherwise than by a pronouncing without a Book a conceived Form the ability of another to conceive and utter for matter and words is as much limited by the one as by the other It is true when prejudice is against reading or the Forms read or the Reader huddles it over or delivers it coldly it much abates the affection of the hearer and so it is in saying over a conceived Prayer if there be a prejudice against the person or his delivery be dull and heavy And it is not to be denied that lively affectionate expressions with readiness of speech and apt emphatical words have much energy on hearers and so sometimes it is when a written Sermon or Prayer is well and pathetically pronounced So that the Form doth but lessen the affection by accident not necessarily and of it self and thus either when a stinted Form is pronounced by another or by the person praying it may be very incommodious to use it usually such Forms being read or said without heed or feeling Yet universally it is not so Nor is the quenching of the Spirit meant 1 Thes. 5.19 meant of the Spirit of Prayer more than any other exercise of godliness or gifts whether ordinary or extraordinary Nor is the quenching the Spirit the act of another but of him in whom the Spirit is quenched who either by his sinful life or by cares and riches and pleasures of this life and lusts of other things châ—kes the word of God which is the sword of the Spirit Ephes. 6.17 as our Saviour speaks Luke 8 14. and they bring no fruit to perfection unto which sense the following Exhortations of not despising prophecyings and proving all things v. 20 21. do incline me and so the sense is Quench not the operation of the Spirit by the preaching of the Word whether by embracing errours or by evil lusts Or if by the Spirit be meant the comforts or extraordinary gifts of it In any of these wayes the quenching is by the persons own act in whom the Spirit is quenched It is neither by any Interpreter I meet with or any shew of reason applyed to the extinguishing or slackning the ability of another to utter and conceive Prayers by publique use of a Liturgy which doth not any otherwise quench that ability than any other way of expression doth the ability of the hearer which must be stinted and so the Spirit of Prayer as this Author terms it be quenched by the speaker in all joynt-prayer unless it be allowed all to speak together contrary to 1 Cor. 14.27 Whence I conclude that this Text is most impertinent And though it be that some mens reading and in like sort some mens speaking without book some using of a set Form in publique and in private may by accident through the fault of the speaker hearer or user abate the fervency of spirit in solitary or joynt prayers yet it is not so necessarily or of it self and therefore not unlawful nor quenching the Spirit of Prayer nor a rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God as this Author speaks in his 2 d. Offer But in some cases a stinted Form is helpful both to the understanding memory affections utterance in prayer both publique and private as many holy Saints have found by experience To the 3 d. I say That the precept to Timothy of stirring up the gift of God which was in him by the putting on of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 cannot be understood of the ability to express himself in extemporary prayer but of his ability to preach the Gospel as 1 Tim. 4.14 is meant which he is encouraged to by the next words v. 7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power of love and of a sound mind or as some read of castigation or reducing others to sâ—briety However it is impertinent to the purpose of the Author here it being not meant of exciting the gift of expression in prayer with others and yet if it were he that reads a Liturgy may stirr up the gift of expression at another time if he cannot when he reads As for the imprâ—ving of the talents Matth. 25.15.27 Luke 19.13.23 it is the duty of every Christian and not only of Ministers and if it be meant of using abilities in joynt-prayer every Christian must as he is able utter himself in prayer contrary to 1 Cor. 14.26 27. I conceive by comparing Matth. 25.29 30. with Matth 13.11 12. Mark 4.24 25 that the talent which is given to each is the knowledge or teaching of the Word of God or the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which each person is to improve by bringing forth the fruits of it Matth 21.43 Or if it be meant of the Ministers gift it is to be understood of his ability to
quod or the terminus ad quem to which it had been directed But if he had only taken occasion upon the sight of the Sun to worship God as David did Psal. 8.3 magnifie or worship God the Creator it had been no Idolatry though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè or the sight 〈◊〉 it the motive to it Till Divine worship be given to a creature it is not Idolatry although in the kind or means of worship there may be Will-worship and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy when it is not there may be superstition of the mind and in the use of such things or forbearing their use superstition in the members That which this Author saith of his major Proposition as generally owned by Protestants I do not believe it to be true understanding it as he doth of relation only to the creature as objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the adoration and not the object to which it is directed As for this minor it may be denied even in his own sense for the adoring of God though it be at the receiving the elements yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo or the motive of their kneeling according to the Common-Prayer Book which saith That the order in the Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive it kneeling is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood Which intimate that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper given to all worthy receivers And that not the sight of bread or wine which is not seen till the cup be in their hand but the remembrance of Christs death and the remission of sins by his blood by saith are the motive to kneel to God with prayer and thanksgiving to him without any honour of the bread and wine though received eaten and drunk to remember Christs death as the procuring cause of those benefits As for his Reason if the elements were not there they would not kneel therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling partly the Antecedent is not true for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them and after they have eaten and drunk while they are in the meditation of Christs death and the benefits by it using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God partly the consequence may be denied For though they would not kneel were not the elements there yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling any more than the presence and speech of the Mâ—nister who delivers them with prayer and exhortation to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation And indeed it is not the presence of the elements when they are received that is while they are in the Ministers hand or their own or in their mouths which is the objectum significativè à quo but the actions with the elements at the consecration by the Minister which signifie Christs death and the use by themselves in eating and drinking whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ which in kneeling they exercise by prayer As for the words of Didoclavius with Maccovius his assent they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter Nor if they were true would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry We might more justly and more to the purpose allege the words of Dr. Ames in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder ch 4. sect 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist which refuseth to kneel unto Christ in the celebration of the Lords Supper And the Conformists deny they require kneeling to any other than God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar it concerns them to speak for themselves who use it neither do all the Conformists use it no not in Cathedrals if my information be right nor is there any established Law for it and those that use it do avouch they do it not to any other than God and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry whatever other fault they are chargeable with by reason of it It follows Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Object To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter if it be said That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry is exceeding harsh and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered yet we answer 1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings and not to be born and that by such hearers as were once his admirers and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry That such poor worms as we should be recharged herewith it is no great marvel it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master 2ly We have in this matter said nothing but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement who assert fully That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him is Idolatry such as do so are Idolaters With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England if they are guilty as that they are hath been abundantly demonstrated why should any be offended To speak truth when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious In the margin are these words Calvin Perkins Ames Maccâ—vius Altingius Wendeline Paraeus Explicat Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith Quid postulat secundum praeceptum Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine aut figurâ exprimamus neve nullâ ratione eum colamus quà m qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit 1 Sam. 15.23 Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea quae vero cultui divino adversantur 1. Idololatria quae est culius numinis fictitius aut superstitiosus Sunt autem Idololatriae duâ— species praecipuae una crassior cum fictitium numen colitur haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto aliquâ ex parte in tertio
Ministers of England may be justly charged That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book with modes and rites used in the Papacy cannot be denied Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Jesus of bâ—eaking bread to all according to thâ— form therein prescribed That they are Ordained and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy is also known I ask are these things the sin and evil of thâ—se men or are they not If they are not Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bishâ—ps these received Yea why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used joyn with them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as administred by them Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom abundantly demonstrate that they in their consciences are perswaded that t is the sin and evil of the preseâ—t Priests of England thus to act and from such a mission in the worship of the Lord Answ. The major Proposition is granted To what he saith he hath already proved answer is made before That the present Ministers are justly charged by him or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish that their bâ—eaking bread to all according to the form prescribed is undue or their Ordination requires proof The not receiving Ordination may be from another cause than perswasion in conscience that t is the sin and evil of the Ministers that they act by such a mission perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required They may forbear the Communion not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some but because they scruple the gesture prescribed Here then is no proof of their sin let 's see how if it were granted that they did sin participation in their guilt is proved As for the Second saith he That the hearing the present Ministers of England is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with â—thers in their sin will abundantly demonstrate the truth thereof To instance in a few particulars Then may persons be justly chaâ—ged as guilty hereof 1. When they are found any way consenting with thâ—m in their sin Ps. 50.18 When thou sawest a thief then thou consentedst with him and hast been partaker with the adulterers T is not the doing of the act that was done by these wicked persons that is here called partaking with them but a secret consenting with them therein 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses bid them not God speed for he that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil deeds 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sin such are watching over rebuking admonishing first privately then by two and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein telling it to the Church which are duties eminently câ—mprised in the ensuing Scriptures 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12 13. and 10.24 25. Levit. 19.17 Mat. 18 15 16 17. 4. When they notwithstanding all that they have done or can do being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein perceive them to persevere in their sin shall still continue to hold communion with them and not separate from them Rev. 18.4 Come out of her my people left being partakers of her sins ye receive of her plagues The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders as it is against positive injunctions of the most High Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. 1 Tim. 6.5 Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 So is it in the last place instanc'd in assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins Not to multiply more particulars let us in a few words make application of these remarkes to the business in hand Is there any thing in the world that carries a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sin Is not our so doing a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in their evil deeds Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming Yea is this to come out of and separate from them What less So then except it can be proved that the particulars instanc'd in are not some of those wayes whereby persons do become guilty of partaking with other mens sins Or that to attend upon the present Ministers of England is not what doth symbolize with some one more or all of them which can never be done it evidently follows That t is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England the doing whereof is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds Answ. I grant consent in sin doing that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin neglect of rebuking admonishing when they are our duty makes us guilty of others sins Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these except that Mat. 18.15 16 17. which I have said before in my Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. is a rule not of reproving all sorts of sins but only of particular injuries and that telling the Church is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Independent way but such a number of Brethren as may be fit to compose the difference above two or three and that not of necessity so as if the Complainant did not do it should be his sin but as of indulgence and conveniency as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor The last way of partaking with other mens sins is not true to wit that if after admonition and obstinacy of the Offendor we joyn in hearing the Word of God praying with him receiving the Lords Supper we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth prayeth or administers the Lords Supper in his personal sins such as are acting by an unlawful mission or other using a sinful irregular way in his calling Nor do the Texts alleged prove it The first Rom. 16.17 is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine they had learnâ—d which is nothing to the avoiding of him that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught because of his personal sins It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author who causeth divisions and offences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paâ—l Râ—m 15.5 6. The coming out from among Infidels being 〈…〉 not touching the unclean thing that is the Idol or unâ—ighteousness 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing or joyning in prayer or the
separation we declare against although we should not think it evil to hear their Ministers Preach the word of God or to worship God with them We are of opinion that it is a gross errour which is often in the mouths of Separatists That they may not hear with the world nor pray with the world whence it hath come to pass that some have left off praying in their Families Catechizing their children instructing their servants unless members of their Churches which tends to bring in irreligion and profaneness and is contrary to the precepts of Scripture Ephes. 6.4 Deut. 6.7 c. contrary to the practise of Christ and his disciples who heard Christ Preach with the scribes and Pharisees praised God with the multitude even the children Christ approving it Luk. 19.37 40. Matth. 21.9.15 16. And however we approve not any evil in the Ministers or their Ministration nor do assent to any unfitting thing therein yet we rejoyce that Gods word is taught and his Name invocated in any company by any persons and think we have the Apostles example to warrant us Philip. 1.18 and do wish that God would not lay to the Separatists charge besides other sins which we think are nor a few in these withdrawings from Communion and invectives their ingratitude for that benefit others have and they might have from that Ministry they so much oppose If this Authour or those of his way suffer contempt reproach and hard usage though we wish it may not be yet it may be told them That not Christs Institutions are contemned but their own intemperate carriage is rebuked which is not likely ever to succeed well but to be a hindrance to the work of Christ and the peace of his Church Yet this Authour proceeds Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin As for the second particular That hereby poor souls are hardned in a false way of worship what can be thought less supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so as hath been proved when they shall see professors that were wont to pray and preach together to profess and protest against Common-prayer-book Priests and worship to cry up or at least approve of Laws made for their Ejection if guilty of no other crime than Conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practise now stock unto their Assemblies and bear their Priests What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice do now see they were mistaken and are beginning at least to return unto those paths from whence they departed and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked are the good old way in which rest is to be found Wo unto the world because of offences wo also unto them by whom they come Answ. The hearing the present Ministers to be no false way of worship is that which is now asserted the contrary is not yet proved by this Authour They who are chargeable with former miscarriages are to answer for themselves The hearing the present Ministers which is defended as lawful is not justly offensive nor for it onely do men fear the doom of Scandalizers It is added Nor is the 3d particular viz. That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God the Spirit his Tabernacle and them that dwell therein to be in the least questioned we every day hear to the breaking of our hearts stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practise of some in this thing What say the wicked of the world less than that Religion which many pretend to is but a fancy that the professors thereof are but a generation of hypocrites that will turn to any thing to save themselves that the spirit by which they are acted is but a spirit of Phanaticism and delusion Yea how do they bless themselves that they are not nor ever were and resolve so much more they will never be of the number of such professors Ask them a reason of all this and they wonder you should ask them and speedily reply to you Do you not see how many of you for fear of persecution have deserted your former principles and are returned to our Assemblies and the Ministry thereof and that any of you stand out 't is from hence evident that it is from a spirit of pride and obstinacy and not as you pretend from divine tenderness and the leadings of the Spirit of the Lord And what can we say to all these things Must we not with grief and sorrow confess That there is indeed too great an occasion administred to them for their thus speaking though this will be no plea for them in the day of Christ. Blessed are they that are not offended in him It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers of England pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ hardens persons in a false wâ—y of worship rebellion and blasphemy against the Lord it 's utterly unlawful for saints to be found in the practice thereof Answ. Such kind of consequences as these are incident to persons of any party who have been earnest for that whch after they have relinquished So have Papists insulted over Protestants upon the returning of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church If my memory fail me not the Authour of Fiat Lux imputes the like things to Protestants upon the coming over of some to their party Yet the Answerer and others know how in that and the like cases to reply to such that mens instability shews their own weakness not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been either good or bad that any take advantage from their fact to harden themselves it is by accident not from the nature of their action if it were good and lawful otherwise that in such cases men are not to condemn or commend the thing which is done because of the actions of the person but to examine things by the rule which is the onely remedy against such events It is true that it is just cause of mourning and dejection when such things happen But not to measure truth or falshood by such motives and considerations nor conclude a thing to be evil because of such accidents To which I add That this Authour doth not well to call the obloquies against his party speaking against Religion blaspheming God the Spirit tabernacle and them that dwell therein whose ways may be reproached by reason of their zeal for their way and yet no reproach to God his Spirit Religion Tabernacle and the indwellers It would be more for their benefit if he and others of his mind and others who have occasioned such blasphemies against Religion did excuâ—â—re semetipsos search themselves whether their own present violence of spirit unpeaceableness out of pretended zeal for God or their and others now conforming intemperate heat have not opened the
of their converts are the cause thereof by their invectives begetting enmity and prejudice against them in the minds of men May it not be said to themselves Where are the souls that are converted comforted strengthened stablished by your Ministry Were not many if not most in your Churches wrought upon at first by other Preachers And if so may it not be said Ye your selves are the seal of their Ministry in the Lord nevertheless though God onely can tell exactly and fully what is the fruit of any mens Ministry yet I hope there are that can testifie their receiving good by the Ministry of some of the present Ministers and that however it be by reason of the many stumbling-blocks cast in the way God will yet have mercy on the people of England and give them hearts to receive the truth Preached to them in the love of it Sure this Authour should rather pray it may be so and encourage the Ministers to do the work of the Lord more faithfully and not weaken their hands by drawing their auditors from them As for that which he saith of the decaies of the auditors of the Ministers I joyn with him but add withall That so far as mine acquaintance or intelligence reacheth there is too great and sensible a decay of the spirit of love power and of a sound mind in the Congregational Churches of old and new England and that a spirit of bitterness consoriousness misreporting mistaking dissenters words and actions unrghteousness unpeaceableness is too abundant in them that I say nothing of their proneness to embrace Antinomianism Quakerism and other dangerous errours Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra The Lord pardon our evils and heal our breaches Yet there is one more Argument to be answered Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostacy Argument 12. That the doing whereof is one step to Apostacy is not lawful to be done But the hearing the present Ministers of England is one step to Apostacy Therefore The major Proposition will readily be granted by all The beginnings of great evils are certainly to be â—esisted Apostacy is one of the greatest evils in the world The minor or second proposition Viz. That the hearing of the present Ministers is one step to Apostacy is evident 1. It cannot be done especially by persons of Congregational principles without a relinquishment of principles owned by them as received from God That the Church of England as National is a Church of the institution of Christ That persons not called to the office of the Ministry by the Saints are rightfull Ministers of Christ must be owned and taken for granted ere the Conscience can acquiesce in the hearing the present Ministers for we suppose 't will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do that there can be a true Ministery in a false Church or that false Ministers may be heard and yet the present Ministers are Ministers in and of the national Church of England and were never solemnly deputed to that office of the suffrage of the Lords people 2ly Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty which with others is eminently of the appointment of the Lord to secure from Apostacy instanc'd in by the Author to the Hebrews Hebr. 10.25 Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the day approaching in which the duty of Saints assembling themselves together as a body distinct from the world and it's assemblies â—s also their frequent and as often as may be exhorting one another as a medium to secure them by the blessing of the Lord thereupon from a spirit of degeneracy and Apostacy from God is clearly asserted whence it undeniably follows that the hearing of the present Ministers of England being inconsistent with the constant and diligent use of the means prescribed for the preservation of the Saints in the way of God for whilst they are attending upon their teachings they cannot assemble themselves according to the prescription of God in the forementioned Scripture is at least one step to the dreadfull sin of Apostacy from God and therefore it is utterly unlawful for Saints so to do And thus far of the Twelfth Argument for the proof of the assertion under our maintenance viz. That 't is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England to which many others might be added but we doubt not to the truly tender and humble enquiring Christian what hath been offered will be abundantly sufficient to satisfie his Conscience in the present enquiry Answ. If by Apostasie be meant Apostatie from the living God and the Christian faith the major is granted and the minor is denied nor is there any thing tending to a shew of proof of it produced for it and if it should be meant of such Apostasie the thing is so notoriously false the hearers of such Ministers as â—e now Ministers in England having been as constant in the profession and practice of Christianity both against Popery and other ungodliness in times of persecution by Papists and at other times as other Christians in other ages that this Author would be hissed at as one extremely impudent in asserting so palpable an untruth But I conceive by his proof of the minor he means by Apostasie the relinquishing of the Congregational principles and practise Concerning which I conceive the major may be denyed it being not unlawfull but a necessary duty to depart from some of their principles and practises I mean such as are for separation in communion from dissenting Christians Yet I do not think but the Conscience may well acquiesce in the hearing of the present Ministers as teaching truth without relinquishment of the two principles owned by them as received from God I think if they will weigh what is here written they may find if not the congregational principles yet separation inferred from them to be an errour and to beget nothing but Superstition in their minds and sinfull uncharitable division in their practise Nor do I think it necessary that they which still adhere to that way of Communion need neglect the duty of meeting and exhorting one another according to Hebr. 10.25 the mistake of which is shewed in the answer to this chapter Sect. 2. They that hear the present Ministers some hours may hear other Ministers at other hours they that at one time hear them may at another time exhort one another Heretofore persons of Congregational Principles could hear in Parochial Assemblies Parochial Ministers why they may not do so still I understand not were it not that opinions of separation animated them to division and faction which the Lord amend and make them diligent to provoke one another to love and to good works I have now answered the Jury of Twelve Arguments which I have found brutum fulmen as the shooting off Ordinances without a bullet
as a wine-bibber and gluttonous person in his miracles as one that wrought them by the Devil who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost Matth. 12.31 is known as being what is frequently remarked in the Scripture 4. We no where find the disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ. Nay 5 We cannot but think the supposition hereof not onely inconsistent with and opposite to that expression concerning Christ Mar. 6.34 And Jesus when he saw much people was moved with compassion towards them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd what without a shepherd and yet the Scribes and Pharisees whose feeding they might lawfully attend upon doth Christ pity them in this desperate state and not give them one word of direction to wait upon these profound and worthy Doctors but also contrary to that solemn command given forth from the Lord Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation and the practice of the disciples who continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer Acts 2.42 6. Were that the intendment of Christ as is suggested and the argument of our brethren valid a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the world that denies that Christ is the Messiah affirms that he was a deluder of the people a gluttonous person a winebibber one that did miracles by Belzebub the prince of Devils that persecutes even to death Christ in his people might by a like parity of reason be deduced Christ commanded or at least permitted his disciples to hear the Pharisees who were such as hath been proved therefore 't is lawful to hear persons with the same characters upon them But God forbid any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ or that any who pretend to fear God and I hope do so in reality should stand by a cause which hath no better arguments to defend it than what may be as righteously every way made use of for the attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer or opposer of Christ in the world Evident then it is notwithstanding the great flourish that many make with this Scripture for the abetting their attendance upon the present Ministers of England that it refuses to admit the least sanctuary thereunto The Scribes and Pharisees mentioned Matth. 23.1 2. may for ought we know be Magistrates not Ministers if Ministers they were as hath been proved lawfully so Christ says concerning them Whatever they bid you observe and do that observe and do Therefore 't is lawful to attend upon the Ministers of England whose lawful calling to their office cannot be proved yea though there is not the least intimation of a command from Christ or so much as a permission to his disciples to hear the Scribes aad Pharisees Nugae tricae siculae If this be to dispute a man need not fear but to be able to multiply arguments at an easie rate for whatever he hath a mind to undertake the defence of Yet this is supposed by many to be of greatest moment in this controversie I reply If by attendance on the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them as their ordinary shepherds as this Authous words seem to import doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his disciples such an attendance both for the reasons given by this Authour and specially because he asserts himself as their onely Master or Doctour Matth 23.8.10 yet the mention of their sitting in Moses his chair or seat notes more then their discourse upon particular occasional meeting to wit their ordinary expounding the Law of Moses in their Schools where our Lord Christ permitted his disciples and the multitude to hear them with this limitation and proviso in and as they taught the Law which hearing he did not forbid them but allow them with such caveats as are there given in that Chapter And against such hearing none of the reasons of this Authour are of force Not the first for though such personal evils were sufficient motives to keep back people either from following their example or private counsels yet not to keep them back from hearing Gods Law expounded by them The same answer is for the second reason The permission of Christ is not to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect he had before warned them of receiving their traditions Matth. 15.14 the leaven of their doctrine Matth. 16.12 In which no doubt they understood the doctrine about justification by the works of the Law to be comprehended But the permission of hearing them is onely as they sate in Moses his seat that is as they taught them the duties of Moses his Law which he said Matt. 5.17 He came not to destroy but to fulfil which is manifest from the illative particle therefore v. 2. because they sit in Moses seat and bid you observe what Moses did you are to observe what they bid you observe and consequently may hear them so teaching The third reason hath the same answer with this overplus That to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blaphemy he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher v. 8.10 To the fourth it is but from a testimony negatively and so of no force We read not that they used the Lords Prayer yet none will say they did not less that they might not we read not of their alms or fasting yet they might do both To the fifth it was but a limited permission of hearing them as they taught Moses Law not as allowing constant attendance on them as their shepherds Christ did conceive the people to be without a shepherd notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law because though that doctrine were right and to be observed yet it was not sufficient to feed them to eternal life Acts 2.40 St. Peter did well to exhort his auditors to save themselves from that untoward generation of opposers of Christ as his Master before would have him and all his disciples do not doing after their works nor following their perverse doctrine and the Church did rightly practice in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer yet he neither did nor was to disswade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law which they were obliged to observe To the sixht I grant it lawful to hear any man teach truth which is Gods and may be heard from the mouth of any man with whom God allows us converse and communion as they are men though we are to hold no communion with them in wickedness nor willingly hear their blasphemies That the Pharisees as such were not Magistrates nor lawful Ministers nor considered as such is shewed before Neither do we say that Christ permitted attendance on the Ministry
warranted and engaged to attend upon it The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more are all that love the Lord Jesus bound to encourage them in this way as being the the true way of Christ and to relinquish them and separate from them for this cause is very sinfull sith it is to separate from them for doing their duty To hold them as excommunicate to reprove to urge them to repentance not to receive them to conceive of them as brethren walking disorderly is uncharitableness and injustice That the incestuous person was a good man before he repented cannot be well conceived sith he committed such a sin as was not named among the Gentiles it was the sin of the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned that he that had done that deed might be taken away from among them it is no sin that the Saints do not mourn that the present Ministers who are confessedly good men may be taken away from among them it is their great sin if they do not bless God for them and pray for their establishment and good success in their Ministry That the Ministry is devised by any other than God is not shewed they that talk and write ignorantly not ever reading the book of Ordination which shews what their Ministry is make invectives against them and wildly wander from them upon false suggestions often to their perdition That to hear them is not to partake with them in sin is shewed in answer to this Authors 8 th argument chap. 8 th That their Ministry is usurped is not proved if it were it might be a true Ministry which if it be though it were usurped it is not the sin but may be the duty of him that exerciseth it It follows Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers Object 7. But many learned and good men and such as in Conscience could not conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England have in dayes past and do now hear the present Ministers thereof To which we answer 1. That the greatest Scholars and most accomplished for humane wisdom parts yea visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but many times have been found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ the most stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation of any persons in the world witness the Scribes and Pharisees the learned Rabbies and profound Doctors of that day with what virulency did they oppose Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel preached by him 2. That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning and all manner of accomplishments as learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter not to mention the reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by vertue of it to the charge of Souls as they speak But 3. To the Law and to the Testimony Isa. 8.20 if they speak not according to this rule though Angels for knowledge and holiness they are not to be received or heeded one word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender than the example of an hundred professors can be 't is possible these may err be yea and nay but so cannot the truth of God which is alwayes the same and will abide so for ever 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ so far as Saints follow Christ I may and ought to follow them but no further so that the learning parts or holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England is no warrant for me so to do nor will ever be a satisfactory answer to that enquiry who hath required these things at your hands I reply It is not denied that the most learned and zealous of the law such as St. Paul among the Jews the most excellent Moralists among the Gentiles have been great enemies to the Gospel afore their calling to the faith of Christ but the objection is of learned and good men among Christians who are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ. Possibly it may fall out yea and it hath fallen out that among Christians the greatest Scholars and most acâ—ompâ—â—shed for humane parts wisdoms yea for visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but have been stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation I think â—ardinal Caietan was one of the greatest Scholars of his time yet saw not what Luther saw about justification by faith and Luther though he did much in that point yet saw not so much as Calvin in the point of the reâ—l presence in the Eucharist and therefore like well the 3 d. and 4 â—h answer here that we should adhere only to the Law and to the Testimony and be followers of the learned as they are of Christ. Yet I conceive that it is a wicked course which is taken by some so to disparage learning as if it were of no necessity Universities as of no use but rather Seminaries of ungodliness to say that men that have humane learning are the unlearned and unstable which do wrest the Scriptures 2 Pet. 3.16 as How the Cobler a much followed Preacher a great while ago in London vented in print that learned Scholars do make the Scriptures as a nose of wax are but Juglers and deceivers which are too too often insinuated into the minds of well meaning but weak minds whereby they are more addicted to such as How Tillinghast and other popular Orators and their injudicious discourses if stuffed with fained words and earnest affections then to the most solid proofs of the most learned whose interpretations of Scripture and handling of Controversies have cleared the truth and restored purity of Doctrine to the great benefit of the Church of God which these people understand not But it hapneth according to the saying Scientia nâ—minem habâ—â— inimicum nisi ignorantem And sure though I would have no Christian enslave his judgement to any man it were that Anthropolatria or sin of glorying in men forbidden 1 Cor. 3.21 against which I printed a little treatise in the the year 1645 foreseeing it would be the means of dividing Christians into parties nor would I have that which is propounded by men of none or lesser learning rejected because it is from them one Paphâ—utius may see that truth which a whole Council though such as the first Nâ—cene without him did not discern it was an evil spirit in Matthaeus Langius that made him disdain to be taught by Luther as is related in the History of thâ— Council of â—rent God doth out of the
hearing of the word of God are reckoned and art 6. God is to be worshipped as in private families daily and in secret each one by himself so more solemnly in the publick assemblies which are not carelesly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto Upon which and other suppositions it concerns every tender conscience which receiveth these principles to consider how they can acquit themselves from not observing the Lords day in publick assemblies where God is invocated in the name of Christ and the word of God truly taught especially in such places where they may enjoy these performed by the present Ministers and are deprived of their former Ministers and communion and cannot of themselves discharge these duties That which this Authour answers doth not solve the doubt That such persons conceive they cannot spend the Lords day without hearing is not out of any Idolizing the Ordinances of God but from those grounds which are by the declaration afore named and the generality of zealous Preacher pressed upon Christians That it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day not onely to abstain from labour which makes onely Sabbatum asinorum a Sabbath that beasts have as well as men nor onely to exercise themselves in reading and prayer at home for that is every days duty but also to frequent the publick assemblies where God is worshipped which this Authour conceives injoyned Heb. 10.25 and is gathered from Exod. 20.8 Acts 20.7 Revel 1.10 1 Cor. 16.1.2 John 20.19.26 That many persons cannot in many places find such assemblies of the Saints as this Authour means is a thing out of doubt with me Were publick hearing a sin I confess it were better to do nothing than do that But that is not yet proved and I think it fit to acquaint the Reader That Mr. Norton of New England in that Answer to Apollonius his questions which is commended by Mr. Cotton Dr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Philip Nye and Mr. Sidrach Simpson ch 13. doth thus determine Such things being observed as are to be observed it may be lawful to use forms of prayers administrations of Sacraments c. prescribed in the Church neither are the Churches which use them guilty of superstition will-worship and violating the second Commandment yea it is lawful to embrace communion with them where such forms in the publick worship are in use neither doth it lie as a duty on a believer that he separate and disjoyn himself from such a Church unless he would partake in the superstitious worship of Images Communion with a Church quâ utitur as it useth worship of it self unlawful is unlawful communion with a Church quae utitur which useth it to wit in other lawful worship is lawful and separation from it is unlawfull And to shew how evil the counsel of this Authour is to men to spend the Lord's day in a corner idle at home rather then go to hear in publick I think good to subjoyn some words of Mr John Paget in his Preface to the Christian Reader before his Book Intituled An Arrow against the separation of the Brownists Of the Brownists there are sundry sorts some separate from the Church of England for corruptions and yet confess both it and Rome and it also to be a true Church as the followers of Mr. Johnson Christian Plea p. 216 217. Some renounce the Church of England as a false Church and yet allow private communion with the godly therein as Mr. Robinson Justifie p. 339 340 247. and his followers Relig. Com. p. 1. c. Some renounce all religious communion both publique and private with any Member of that Church whosoever as Mr. Ainsworth Counterpoy pag. 197. and such as hearken unto him being deepest and stiffest in their Schism The evil of this separation is great First The minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby even of such as do not separate but have some liking thereof especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them Relig. comm preface to wit That they seeing it not to be for their purposes that the world should so esteem of them do undoubtedly strain and wring the neck of their consciences and courses to look the contrary way c. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation Secondly for those that separate but do not yet joyn unto them or being joyned do withhold from actual communion living alone and hearing the word of God in no Church as some do How great is their misery also Mr. Robinson himself ibid. p. 36.39 shews it at large noâ—ing them to be Idol-members such as break the commandment of Christ loose the fruit of his ascension and fail their own edification and salvation many ways c. Thirdly for those that being enjoyned to them do also live with them seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ and consequently from the fellowship of Christ Jesus himself and from the participation of his grace and glory so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. Johnson treat on Matt. 18. Preface A. 2. complaining of the evils among them as emulation debate and other sins which daily arise and spread themselves to the great dishonour of God c. As for the directions given by this Authour how to spend at home the Lords day some of them are such as weak persons women and novices cannot make use of it yea they would be dangerous to them occasioning them to fall into errours Enthusiastick conceits some of them Antinomians count unnecessary and those that are good yet by the deprivation of society and publick teaching and heavily performed and they that take such courses do either very frequently decay in the exercise of godliness grow barren and liveless in prayer and holy conferences or turn Seekers Quakers Ranters Censurers Scoffers Libertines However were they all used yet they solve not the doubt arising from those principles which require publick hearing for hallowing the Lords day which is to be observed not onely for the benefit of our own edification but also for the glory of God and testification of our profession which is not done by private exercise of Religion And although some persons may more benefit themselves in knowledge by reading at home yet the example hinders others from the use of the publick Ordinances whereto we should by our practice encourage them For these and other reasons often urged by those who have been for separation it is not to be expected that such private exercises should be blessed or accepted of God when the publick are to be performed Both certainly should be done in their seasons not one exclude the other I have thus answered all I find in this Authour and do joyn with him in referring the thing to the Reader who if he will not cheat his
own soul must judge impartially and without prejudice weighing what is said on both sides As for my aims and spirit in writing this thing having found so little equity in mens censures of me about former writings I can the less trust to any sort of mens good or bad of one or other opinion or judgement of me My care I hope shall be to approve my self to God and to sollicite him by prayers for his blessing upon my labours in this thing To which I shall add as over-measure these ensuing Arguments for hearing the present Ministers as now the case is Sect. 15. An Appendix containing fourty additional Reasons against denying the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers First I argue for the lawfulness of hearing them Preach the Doctrine of the Gospel as it is professed in the Church of England from the definition of sin which is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3.4 whence the Apostle Rom. 4.13 Where no law is that is no law prohibiting that which is done there is no transgression Whence I argue That is lawful in which is no sin in the hearing of the present Ministers Preach the doctrine of the Gospel as it is professed in the Church of England is no sin therefore it is lawful The major is undoubted that being unlawful onely in which is sin according to the notion of the terms The minor is proved because it is no breach of the Law there being neither any law of nature nor any written law of the Old or New Testament moral or positive in express terms or by good consequence against it Which is sufficiently proved by the answer to such Arguments as are here brought to prove a prohibition of such hearing and by requiring those that condemn it as unlawful to produce the law which forbids it which yet is not done that we know If it be said as it is by many of the people who scruple the doing of many things used in the publick worship as now it is that in Gods worship it is not enough that there is no law against what we do but there must be also a command to do it else it is will-worship Besides what I have answered in the examination of the first Chapter of this Treatise I add 1. That the alleadging of a command is not necessary to prove a thing lawful but to prove it a necessary duty it is sufficient to prove my present conclusion That no Law forbidding the hearing the present Ministers can be produced 2. That as express command may be shewed for hearing the present Ministers as for hearing the congregational Ministers at least those of them that are Separatist against whom there are more just exceptions then against the present Conforming Ministers of England why they should not be heard Which leads me to a second Argument for the lawfulness of hearing them which I thus form 2. Those Ministers may lawfully be heard against the hearing of whom by no exceptions but such as are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods worship But so it is concerning the hearing of the present Ministers Therefore they may be heard The duty of hearing as it is a part of Gods worship consists in this That we apply our selves to learn the mind of God by which we come to know and obey him It is extrinsecal to this that it be delivered to us by a good or a bad man a man in Church-covenant or not our proper Pastour chosen by our selves or imposed upon us and therefore such personal exceptions against the deliverer are extrinsecal to the duty of hearing or nonâ—hearing if he declare Gods mind to us we may worship God in hearing though the Preacher sin in his conversation or entrance on his Ministery or be otherwise faulty if he be faithful in delivering the truth of God to us though other things make one mans teaching more desirable or more delightful or useful to us yet the defect of them makes not our hearing his teaching unlawful who teacheth the word of God truly because we may thereby learn Gods mind in applying our selves whereto is his worship by hearing 3. This is further proved in that where there are any prohibitions which restrain us from hearing any Teachers it is because of their Doctrine Which is an argument That in hearing others that teach true Doctrine or the truth of Gods word we are at liberty to hear them and consequently the present Ministers supposed to do so The antecedent is verified by inspection of these Deut. 13.3 Matt. 7.15 Mark 4.24 and such other Texts as cautionate men from hearing Teachers Whence may be inferred That 's not unlawful for us from which Gods cautions restrain us not But from hearing the present Ministers supposed to teach the truth of Gods word Gods cautions restrain us not therefore it is not unlawful to hear them 4. It is the character or property of one that is of God or is a sheep of Christ to hear Gods word or Christs voice without limiting it to some persons John 8.47 He that is of God heareth Gods word John 10.27 My sheep hear my voice Whence I argue That is not unlawful which may be a duty and a characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs sheep But to hear the present Ministers being supposed to teach the word of God and the voice of Christ may be a duty and a characteristical property of one that is of God or Christs sheep Therefore it is not unlawful to hear them being supposed to teach the word of God and the voice of Christ. 5. From the same Scriptures it may be argued thus That may be unlawful which may be a sign of one that is not of God nor of Christs sheep but not to hear the present Ministers when they teach the word of God and the voice of Christ may be a sign of one that is not of God for Christ saith John 8.47 Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God nor a sheep of Christ who saith John 10.26 But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep as I said unto you Therefore it may be unlawful not to hear the present Ministers and consequently lawfull to hear them 6. To refuse to hear the word of God though delivered by the present Ministers is profaneness such as is condemned in Esau. Heb. 12.16 For it is the rejecting or neglecting of a holy thing as it is termed by our Lord Christ Matth. 7.6 therefore it may be unlawful to shun hearing them and consequently lawful to hear them 7. The word of God is a pearl of great price Matt. 7.6 such as a merchant man should sell all he hath to buy Matth. 13.46 a great treasure v. 44. therefore to be heard and received by whomsoever held forth and consequently it is folly and sin to shun hearing it because of personal exceptions against the bringer as it would be folly to refuse a
treasure found in a dunghill or a pearl brought by an unworthy person 8. If the word of God preached by the present Ministers may be effectual for that good which is the end wherefore it is preached then it may be lawfully heard from them or rather ought to be heard according to that precept James 1.21 Receive with meekness the ingraffed word which is able to save your souls 1 Pet. 2.1 2. Desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby But the word of God preached by the present Ministers may be thus effectual For the efficacy of it comes not from the personal qualifications of the Preacher but from the verity of it it 's derivation from God his promise and blessing and however Sepatists have declaimed against such Ministers and suggested to their Partisans as if no good could be gotten by hearing them yet experience hath proved the contrary and therefore they are to be heard Finis dat mediis ordinem mensuram amabilitatem The hearing of them is an ordinary means of hearers edification in the faith and obedience of Christ and therefore is not unlawful but to be made use of 9. That is not unlawfull the neglect of which may be the occasion and reason of a mans condemnation it is the condemnation of a person John 3.20 that he comes not to the light But the present Ministers holding forth the light mens not hearing them is not coming to the light and so much the more dangerous if by not hearing them they are deprived of any other to bring the light to them as it may and perhaps doth fall out at some times and in some places Therefore the neglect of hearing them may be the occasion and reason of a persons condemnation and so a damnable sin in them that refuse to hear them and in those that deter others from hearing them 10. The words of Peter John 6.68 Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the words of eternal life include in them this proposition We may go to them as to Teachers of us who have the words of eternal life But the present Ministers who teach the Gospel of Christ have the words of eternal life for it contains his words and is the power of God to salvation from the matter of it Rom. 1.16 17. Mighty through God to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.4 5. Therefore we may go to the present Ministers who teach the Gospel of Christ and hear them as our Teachers 11. The Apostle Paul 1 Thâ—s 2.13 writes thus For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us ye received 〈◊〉 not as the words of men but as it is in tâ—â—th the woâ—d of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe Whence I thus argue If the word of God be to be heard as his word and not as the word of men then it is sufficient for right hearing that we attend to the preaching of it without consideration of the personal qualifications of the men that deliver it and consequently we need not decline hearing of Preachers that deliver it though otherwise liable to exceptions yea it is our duty to hear any men preach it without questioning any thing but whether it be the word of God and it is evil to refuse to hear it because of our disaffection and prejudice against the Preachers and accordingly it is enough to justifie the hearing of the present Ministers that they preach the word of God and that we hear them as teaching it For quatenus ipsum incâ—udes de omni if we may yea ought to hear the word of God as Gods word we may and ought to hear it at any time from any person and if we do not hear it under this consideration we hear amiss and worship not God in hearing But the word of God is to be heard as Gods word as is evident from St. Pauls thanksgiving that the Thessalonians so heard it and not as the word of men though Preached by himself who ascribes the efficacy of it to this consideration in their hearing Therefore it is sufficient for right hearing that we attend to the Preaching of Gods word without consideration of the personal qualifications of them that deliver it and consequently we may rightly hear the present Ministers Preaching Gods word though without such personal qualifications as are required of them 12. The same is further proved by the holy Ghosts approbation of the practice of the Beraeans neighbours to the Thessalonians Acts 17.11 12. These were more noble then those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so therefore many of them believed Whence I argue They may be right hearers of the present Ministers who may hear them as the Beraeans did which proposition is confirmed in that the holy Ghost gives them the commendation of right hearers in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether the things taught by St. Paul were agreeable thereto without examining his commission to Preach or other qualifications of his person yea and this is made the reason of their believing and therefore the word of God is sufficient to beget faith because of it's agreeableness to the Scripture and hath most success when hearers hear it with respect to it's congruity to the holy Scripture and not because delivered by such men as they approve of But thus may Christians hear the present Ministers of England and therefore may be right hearers of the present Ministers and consequently they that do so do lawfully hear them and they that hear their Ministers out of other particular respects and not in this manner hear not rightly nor doth their hearing edifie them in the faith of Christ but tends to inordinate glorying in men and to division consequent thereon 13. From our Lord Christs word Luke 9.49 50. And John answered and said Master we saw one caâ—ting out devils in thy name and we forbade him becaâ—se he followeâ—h not with us And Jesus said into him Forbid him not for he that is not against us is for us I gather That Christ would not have him forbidden to Preach who Preached in his name though he were not joyned to Christs disciples For though the acting in Christs name expressed 〈◊〉 onely using his name to expell devils yet by using his name there was some Preaching of Christ and the words Mark 9.39 For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me and the occasion both Mark 9.37 and Luke 9.48 immediately foregoing Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name receiveth me and whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me but him that sent me and Christs reason Forbid him not for he that is not against us is
for us shew that Christs words are at well meant of preaching in his name as of casting out devils at least the reason of them is of like force for the not prohibiting of men to Preach in his name as to cast out devils Whence I argue They may be heard Preach in Christs name who are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name But the present Ministers of England are not to be forbidden to Preach in Christs name therefore they may be heard Preach in Christs name The major is of it self evident there being no reason to be given why they that are allowed to Preach in Christs name should not be heard by the same allowance allowance to Preach being vain and frivolous without allowance for others to hear The minor is also proved by parity of reason for allowing them to preach as well as those who cast out Devils in Christs name yet joyned not with the Disciples sith so doing they did not speak evil of Christ nor were against him but for him nor is there so much reason of prohibiting the Ministers to preach in Christs name because they are not in a separated Church nor elected by the Members thereof as there was of prohibiting them that followed not with the Apostles to cast out Devils in Christs name If Christ would not have these forbidden to do a miracle in his name neither would he have the other forbidden to preach in his name which they do in effect who make it unlawfull to hear them 14. I shall adjoyn to this that our Saviour Matth. 7.22 23. where he alleageth the plea and expectation of formal hypocrites he doth not reject them for prophesying in his name but for their working iniquity thereby shewing that he allowed their prophesying in his name as good though not sufficient without obedience Whence I argue if their prophesying in Christs name who were workers of iniquity then much more their teaching in Christs name who are only supposed to be defective in outward calling or faulty in some actions consistent with Christianity is to be allowed and if their teaching be allowed then the hearing of them is by consequence allowed for these are conjugates 15. Our Lord Christ saith Luke 10.16 concerning the seventy Disciples he that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me The reason hereof is because they preached the same Doctrine if if there be an outward mission and the same Doctrine which Christ taught is not preached Christ is not heard but when the same Doctrine is heard which Christ taught he is heard and if it be rejected he is despised Whence I argue They may be lawfully heard by hearing of whom we may hear Christ. But by hearing of the present Ministers who preach the Doctrine of Christ we hear Christ therefore we may hear the present Ministers who preach the Dâ—â—trine of Christ. The reason of the minor is from that speech 〈◊〉 Christ John 7.16 my Doctrine is not mine but his that sent 〈◊〉 in the preachers Doctrine which he preacheth after Christ is not his own but Christs who sent him as an Embassadours message is his Kings not his own and by hearing him deliver it according to his Commission his Master is heard 16. This is further confirmed from Rom. 10.15 And how shall they preach except they be sent As it is written How beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of Peace and bring glad tydings of good things The citation of these words to prove that they cannot preach who are not sent doth presuppose 1. That they who preach the Gospel of Peace that bring the glad tydings of good things are sent to preach and that by hearing of it comes faith and that the word of God is heard else were the citation impertinent and the inference v. 17. inconsequent 2. That their feet are beautifull and that they are to be heard in this respect But I subsume the present Ministers who preach the Doctrine they undertake to teach preach the Gospel of Peace and bring the glad tydings of good things therefore are they sent their feet are beautifull and are to be heard 17. In the parable of the talents Matth. 25.15 or pounds Luke 19.13 our Saviour saith the Kingdom of Heaven is as when a noble man goes into a farr Country gives his Servants his money to trade with and they are to gain more thereby 1 Cor. 12.7.8 the gifts of the spirit are given to profit withall in which are reckoned the word of wisdome of knowledge teachers v. 28 29. Ephes. 4.11 for the edâ—fying of the body of Christ in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God Whence it is apparent 1. That ability to teach the things of Christ to edifie the body of Christ is a gift of Christ 2. That they who do use this ability do it unto Christ's advantage according to his design 3. That not to improve this gift is to disappoint Christ of his end in giving it 4. For any to hinder this improvement is sinfull Whence I argue They that have ability to preach the Gospel have received a Talent from Christ to improve it their improving is by preaching this cannot be done unless they be heard therefore the not hearing them makes voyd the use of that gift The present Ministers who preach the Gospel have received this gift and by preaching do use iâ— therefore they are to be heard and the not hearing them is to dâ—sable them from improving it and consequently is a sin against Christs designe 18 As from the end of Christs gifts so from the duty of them that have received them we may prove that the present Ministers are to be heard 1 Pet. 4 10.11 As every man hath received the gift even so Minister the same one to another as good Stewards of the manifold grace of God If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God Whence I argue If the present Mâ—nisters have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God then are they to Minister the same and consequently to be heard This is acknowledged by this Author ch 2. in these words That Christ hath appointed some as Ministers by vertue of an office power to dispense the Ordinances of the Gospel untill his Second Coming is granted by all that 't is permitted to others as their liberty enjoyned them as their duty having received gifts and enablements from the Lord thereunto to improve those gifts in preaching praying c. for the edification of the body of Christ though not solemnly invested into office is assented unto at least by some of those with whom we have to do whence a lawfulness to hear them as Ministers or as gifted brethren doth necessarily arise But the present Ministers have received a gift to speak the Oracles of God as experience shews and that equally if not beyond the teachers of the
27. The Schism in the Church of Corinth did arise from the affecting of and addicting themselves to some teachers with relinquishment if not disclaiming of others as appears by that which is said 1 Cor. 1.12 Every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ whereupon there were among them envying and strife and division 1 Cor. 3.3 and they sorted themselves into companies severed from others as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 11.17 18. and that about the Lords Supper v. 21.33 Now the not hearing of the present Ministers and the separation from the Churches that hear them and adhering only to their own teachers and Churches according to the principles of the Separatists is either the same or very like the Schism or division among the Corinthians or tends to it and hath begotten and is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England as were in the Church of Corinth and therefore it is to be censured to be alike evil as the Schism among the Corinthians and is reckoned Gal. 5.20 21. among the works of the flesh excluding out of the Kingdom of God What is alledged by this Authour to justifie such separation is answered before That which Dr. John Owen hath in his book of Schism tending to acquit such separation from the crime of Schism or to difference it from that which was the evil among the Corinthians hath been examined by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey That notion which is appropriated to the Corinthian Schism as if it were onely division in the same particular Church and not separation from others not joyned in the same particular Congregation or such congregational Church is not agreeable with what the Apostle delivers 1 Cor. 10.17 and 12.12 13. Rom. 12.4 5. Ephes. 4.4 Ephes. 5.30 31 32. Ephes. 1.23 Col. 3.11.15 whereby every Christian believer where-ever is counted of the same body to which they should be joyned in love peace mutual affection and correspondent endeavours for their good and if the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.25 expresly count it a Schism in the body when any Christian doth neglect another and not take care of another much more is it Schism when Christians separate wiâ—hout necessary cause from communion with others and more specially when they disclaim them that are teachers of the Word of God as if Christ were divided as St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 1.13.23 St. James in his Epistle ch 2.1 writes thus My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons and he expresseth himself by instance that they preferred the rich before the poor in placing them in their Assemblies and taxeth them therefore as partial in themselves and judges of evil thoughts Now to hear one that preacheth the faith of Christ because he is of our particular Society or by reason of particular interest or agreement in opinion or any other then the unity of faith in the Lord Jesus and to disclaim hearing another that hath the same faith preacheth it and holds communion with them that embrace it and to separate from such to despise or oppose such is to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons then their faith and therefore is condemned by St. James as evil 24. St. Paul Rom. 16 17. writes thus Now I beseech you brethren maâ—k them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned and avoyd them But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers which preach to them the truth of Gods Word because they are not in a congregational Church or not elected or ordained according to the rules of such Churches or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable which are made the reasons of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers who preach the Gospel do cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12.4.5 Rom. 14.1 c. Rom. 15.1 c. therefore their Doctrine is to be avoyded 25. The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.36 speaks thus What came the Word of God out from you or came it unto you only Which seems to reprehend the conceits whether schismatical or arrogant as if the Word of God were from them as the onely right teachers or confined to them as the only persons to whom it was communicated and from whom it might be received and so condemns such supposed inclosures by any Church or company of teachers But such conceits and inclosures they have and make who deny the present Ministers are to be heard conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard 26. The Apostle Philip. 3 15 16. writes thus Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thâ—ng ye be otherwise minded God shâ—ll reveal even this unto you thaâ— is as many of you as are well instructed in the Christian Doctrine for so the word is used 1 Cor. 2.6 1 Coâ— 14.20 Hâ—b 5 14. being opposed to Children and Babes that is wâ—ak in thâ— faith Rom. 14.1 Lâ—t them be minded as I am which he had expressed before in the chapter from v. 4. to v. 15. and if any through weakness â—n faith be otherwise minded as those Rom. 14 2.5 that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory God would in time reveal this to be their liberty whicâ— I now judge to be mine Nevertheless saith he whereto ye have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same things Which requires Christian communion without separation notwithstâ—nding such difference and consequently condemns separation from Ministerâ— or Christians by reason of diversity of judgement about Church Government and Liturgy and different practise about Conformity or Non-conformity to them which are of less moment than those differences about meats and dayes and therefore notwithstanding them there should be walking together in preaching hearing praying and other duties of Christian communion 27. The Holy Ghost hath recorded the Prophesie of â—alaam Numb 24.3 4. c. of Caiaphas John 1â— 51 52. yea the sayings of Greek Infidel Idolatrous Poets cited by St. Paul as the words of Aratus Acts 17.28 of Menander 1 Cor. 15.33 of Epimâ—nides Titus 1.12 which shews the lawfulness of reading hearing and making use of true sayings of any though neither true Ministers of Christ nor believers but Idolaters and wicked enemies to the faith much more may the books be read and the Sermons heard of such learned men or preachers as clear and deliver the word of God notwithstanding dissent or disconformity to others about Liturgy and Church Discipline 28. The Apostle 1 Thess. 5.20 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings but to prove all things to hold fast that which is good St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God they make it not sin meerly to hear them